National slow hoon it day
Discussion
yep my idea is to drive on selected days @10 mph under the speed limits, see my other post on Gen Gassing. Some of you maybe interested to join in on the first of these days which is possibly on May 5th.
Are you fed up with extortionate fuel prices/ excessive vehicle tax and over use of scamera vans and speeding tickets! Then join in on the day , will post firm time/date nearer the big day.
Other link/post
To all fellow PH'ers i have had an idea to see if we can muster enough interest in a national 'drive everywhere @ 30 mph'- day.( except where lower speed limits apply eg outside /inside school grounds in and around hospitals etc.etc)
My aim is to
a) prove that the accident rate stays about the same, regardless of the speed limit( Thus proving Speed alone doesn't kill) Tiredness, lack of concentration, distractions, poor driving skills etc etc actually kills.
b) prevent any Scamera partnerships getting any funding for that day, thus making them redundant for 24 hours.
c)Causing gridlock on the roads as a sort of 'strike action', very popular when we had a petrol rise in the past, M4 gridlock had a huge impact and resulted in a drop in petrol prices in the short term.
If stopped by the police a stock answer could be that you were concerned about global warming , the cost of fuel and being thrifty, or were trying to not get any points on your licence which could lead to losing your job etc. Or just following the advice of Richard Brunstrum and reducing ones speed!
I am pretty sure the police would be sympathetic to many of these excuses and let you off with a warning. Afterall the negative press would be quite damaging if they were to fine thousands of people for NOT SPEEDING or MAKING REASONABLE PROGRESS on the highways.
Come on fellow PHers ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, lets pick a day of action that will make them think again about the effect they are having on the motorists in Britain.
Are you fed up with extortionate fuel prices/ excessive vehicle tax and over use of scamera vans and speeding tickets! Then join in on the day , will post firm time/date nearer the big day.
Other link/post
To all fellow PH'ers i have had an idea to see if we can muster enough interest in a national 'drive everywhere @ 30 mph'- day.( except where lower speed limits apply eg outside /inside school grounds in and around hospitals etc.etc)
My aim is to
a) prove that the accident rate stays about the same, regardless of the speed limit( Thus proving Speed alone doesn't kill) Tiredness, lack of concentration, distractions, poor driving skills etc etc actually kills.
b) prevent any Scamera partnerships getting any funding for that day, thus making them redundant for 24 hours.
c)Causing gridlock on the roads as a sort of 'strike action', very popular when we had a petrol rise in the past, M4 gridlock had a huge impact and resulted in a drop in petrol prices in the short term.
If stopped by the police a stock answer could be that you were concerned about global warming , the cost of fuel and being thrifty, or were trying to not get any points on your licence which could lead to losing your job etc. Or just following the advice of Richard Brunstrum and reducing ones speed!
I am pretty sure the police would be sympathetic to many of these excuses and let you off with a warning. Afterall the negative press would be quite damaging if they were to fine thousands of people for NOT SPEEDING or MAKING REASONABLE PROGRESS on the highways.
Come on fellow PHers ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, lets pick a day of action that will make them think again about the effect they are having on the motorists in Britain.
Random K' said:
Bye Bye everyone I am going to die. 
We're all going to die; it's just a matter of when and how...Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves your chances of it not being today though!
I don't believe in any way that "speed kills," however I have been to many road traffic collisions where excessive speed (for the conditions, for the road, for the driver's skill and experience or for the vehicle) was a contributory factor in both the cause and the effects.
Look out! Incoming...
Rubin215 said:
Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves your chances of it not being today though!
Sorry, but that statement is not correct according to almost all the research done into the subject of speed and accident rates. Most 'long standing' limits (as opposed to those that have been adjusted within the last 10 years for political, not safety, reasons) were set based on the 85th percentile rule which showed that, when no limit is set, the safest speed to set the limit at was the speed at which 85% of traffic went at or below. The research showed that if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration. Check out the very comprehensive site of the late Paul Smith at www.safespeed.org.uk
Rubin215 said:
I don't believe in any way that "speed kills," however I have been to many road traffic collisions where excessive speed (for the conditions, for the road, for the driver's skill and experience or for the vehicle) was a contributory factor in both the cause and the effects.
Look out! Incoming...
Inappropriate speed kills and inappropriate speed often has little to do with a number on a metal stick.Look out! Incoming...
Ah, I should have known it would be Mr White is...
What absolute hogwash!
Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
Lets look at a 10 mph reduction in vehicle speed first, shall we?
Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).
More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.
More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.
In terms of traffic safety; safest city in the world for all road users (car, lorry, bus, pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist) is Tokyo.
Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.
Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."
This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
Take that argument to it's logical conclusion then surely you'll be down at the local primary school gates lobbying to increase the speed limit on the grounds of road safety?
If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway (remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).
Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?
Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
in the meantime, carry on being imortal...
black-k1 said:
Rubin215 said:
Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves your chances of it not being today though!
Sorry, but that statement is not correct according to almost all the research done into the subject of speed and accident rates. Most 'long standing' limits (as opposed to those that have been adjusted within the last 10 years for political, not safety, reasons) were set based on the 85th percentile rule which showed that, when no limit is set, the safest speed to set the limit at was the speed at which 85% of traffic went at or below. The research showed that if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration. Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
Lets look at a 10 mph reduction in vehicle speed first, shall we?
Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).
More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.
More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.
In terms of traffic safety; safest city in the world for all road users (car, lorry, bus, pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist) is Tokyo.
Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.
Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."
This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
Take that argument to it's logical conclusion then surely you'll be down at the local primary school gates lobbying to increase the speed limit on the grounds of road safety?
If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway (remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).
Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?
Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
in the meantime, carry on being imortal...
Does that mean you will join me in driving 10 mph under the speed limits..
Cheers
I will let you all know the date nearer the time.
Cheers
I will let you all know the date nearer the time.
Rubin215 said:
Ah, I should have known it would be Mr White is...
What absolute hogwash!
Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
Lets look at a 10 mph reduction in vehicle speed first, shall we?
Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).
More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.
More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.
In terms of traffic safety; safest city in the world for all road users (car, lorry, bus, pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist) is Tokyo.
Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.
Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."
This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
Take that argument to it's logical conclusion then surely you'll be down at the local primary school gates lobbying to increase the speed limit on the grounds of road safety?
If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway (remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).
Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?
Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
in the meantime, carry on being imortal...
black-k1 said:
Rubin215 said:
Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves your chances of it not being today though!
Sorry, but that statement is not correct according to almost all the research done into the subject of speed and accident rates. Most 'long standing' limits (as opposed to those that have been adjusted within the last 10 years for political, not safety, reasons) were set based on the 85th percentile rule which showed that, when no limit is set, the safest speed to set the limit at was the speed at which 85% of traffic went at or below. The research showed that if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration. Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
Lets look at a 10 mph reduction in vehicle speed first, shall we?
Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).
More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.
More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.
In terms of traffic safety; safest city in the world for all road users (car, lorry, bus, pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist) is Tokyo.
Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.
Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."
This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
Take that argument to it's logical conclusion then surely you'll be down at the local primary school gates lobbying to increase the speed limit on the grounds of road safety?
If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway (remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).
Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?
Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
in the meantime, carry on being imortal...
gilberninvader said:
...
Are you fed up with extortionate fuel prices/ excessive vehicle tax and over use of scamera vans and speeding tickets! Then join in on the day , will post firm time/date nearer the big day.
Gilberninvader,Are you fed up with extortionate fuel prices/ excessive vehicle tax and over use of scamera vans and speeding tickets! Then join in on the day , will post firm time/date nearer the big day.
Sorry but I won't be joining you because your underlying premis is all wrong. Abide by the speed limits and you'll never get a speeding fine - where is the extortion there? If everyone obeyed the law, there would be no "scamera" vans at all, not just a case of making them redundant for 24 hours.
If you drive down a clear motorway at 30mph, you can expect to get booked for it. Don't expect the rest of the world to support you if you're not making adequate progress: you make yourself an accident waiting to happen. (Now tell me you've never come up behind a prat on a motorway travelling way below the limit and had to hit the anchors a bit sharpish - enough said.)
Petrol tax is rather extreme and if you had restricted your protest to just that you might have got more support, but confusing this issue with speeding fines etc just makes it sound like a general winge rhather than a targetted campain.
Dave
Rubin215 said:
Try this website for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
"Almost all casualties and fatalities on our roads are the tragic result of an unnecessary collision, and excessive or inappropriate speed is often a contributory factor." www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
When you manage to drill down the police's own statistics, often equates to about 7-11% of accidents. I think, from memory, the biggest cause is failure to judge a vehicle's path/speed.
Now I know that a reduction in a vehicle's speed gives more time to react to others' stupid mistakes but surely you reach a point where you have to accept there are risks in everything and that there will always be road deaths. The only way to eliminate this risk completely would be for us to stand still.
I know it is tragic when anyone is killed and the thought that someone's death can be explained as a statistical inevitability is of little comfort to the relatives, but life carries risks. Better to educate people to these risks and put the responsibility for their lives back in their own hands.
When I was a kid, one of my school friends was knocked down on a busy road (He survived). There was no blame given to the driver - it was acknowledged as his own fault. Whatever happened to education? Where did the Green Cross Code man go or Buffy the squirrel?
In Milton Keynes, where clever planners have devised a way of separating people from vehicles, you still get pedestrians killed crossing 70mph roads. So what is the reaction? Despite the fact that the pedestrian has ignored the pedestrian bridges available, the council want to reduce the speed limit.
Rubin215 said:
What absolute hogwash!
Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
TRL studies and yes.Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
Rubin215 said:
Lets look at a 10 mph reduction in vehicle speed first, shall we?
Sure.Rubin215 said:
Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).
State your source.Rubin215 said:
More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.
Incorrect. Time without distance is meaningless. Your argument invites the suggestion that one vehicle tailgaiting another vehicle at 40mph is as more acceptable, or at least carries less risk, than one vehicle following another vehicle at a safe distance at 60mph. Rubin215 said:
More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
A commonly raised argument based which remains true based on the fact that everything remains equal at zero. Unfortunately progress needs to be made and in a safe manner, which happens to be the 85th percentile. Rubin215 said:
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
See previous two responses and combine them.Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
Rubin215 said:
You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.
Or, at the more extreme end of the scale, Richard Hammond.Rubin215 said:
In terms of traffic safety; safest city in the world for all road users (car, lorry, bus, pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist) is Tokyo.
Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.
So that's the only variable, is it? Could I also mention that Japan, as a whole, has the most disciplined drivers in the world, the least cases of roadrage and one of the highest standards of driver education?Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.
Rubin215 said:
Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."
This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
The argument isn't "if I go faster I concentrate so much more", the argument is "if I go slower I concentrate less". You need an averaging rule to use this on a practical scale. The rule would be the 85th percentile.This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
Rubin215 said:
Take that argument to it's logical conclusion then surely you'll be down at the local primary school gates lobbying to increase the speed limit on the grounds of road safety?
Mildly ridiculous comment there and yet again you're only looking at one variable in the equation. Your logical conclusion would be the logical conclusion of a demented person. It's fairly safe to argue that there's enough stimulus in that environment where adoption of a suitable accounting factor isn't necessary.Rubin215 said:
If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway
I'm not even going to start on this.Rubin215 said:
(remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).
Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?
Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
Read, acknowledged, reviewed.Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?
Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
Rubin215 said:
in the meantime, carry on being imortal...
Are you suggesting that if we drive 10mph below the speed limit that we'll live forever or are you just using inappropriate words and extreme parameter non-argument again?Your argument did consist of valid points (hidden in amongst the diatribe and rhetoric) but your fact without reason stance of debate is weak. People need to get from A to B and in a reasonable time, otherwise we could practically zero the accident rate by limiting all vehicles to 1mph. At 1mph everyone would get to where they're going and it's massively unlikely that anyone would die or be injured. However, it'd also take people several days or weeks to get to work and therefore is irrelevant.
You need to take the axis of speed against the an axis of practical usability and there will be a point of reason on that graph. It'll probably be around the 85th percentile.
Edited by Rawwr on Friday 4th April 09:29
Rubin215 said:
What absolute hogwash!
Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
From www.safespeed.org.uk and yes, I believe it!Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
Rubin215 said:
Lets look at a 10 mph reduction in vehicle speed first, shall we?
Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).
It is a rider/drivers legal duty to ensure that his/her vehicle is in a road worthy condition. If the vehicle is not in a road worthy condition then reducing your speed by 10mph may well delay the occurrence of an incident but I would suggest that it is not likely to avoid it. In this case, a major contributing factor to any accident is the drivers’ decision to take a vehicle that is not road worthy onto the road.Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).
If the vehicle is in a road worthy condition prior to a journey then I would suggest that the reduction of 10mph will not significantly change the results of a catastrophic failure.
Rubin215 said:
More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.
More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
I agree with all of the above but I feel you are missing a fundamental point. The ‘decision making’ part of the process is done by a human being and not a machine. If you reduce the data input rate to a machine it will ‘happily’ sit in an idle mode until the next item of data is sent to it, at which point it will process the data with exactly the same degree of efficiency as the previous item of data and the next item of data. Human beings are not like that. If you give a clear set of rules and ask a human being to concentrate on a task and then provide them with a regular stimulus relating to that task, they will process information quickly and efficiently and generally make good sound decisions based on that events and the rule set. If you then start to remove some of the stimulus you will find that most are unable to concentrate on the task to the same degree and that their reaction times and decision making starts to deteriorate.More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
Driver error/concentration/decision making (call it what you like) is the biggest single cause of road accidents.
Rubin215 said:
You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.
I have no doubt about the link between speed and survivability in the event of an accident but that is not the only point here. I can guarantee that 100% of people will survive totally uninjured, regardless of speed, any accident that does not happen. We need to concentrate on stopping accidents happening in the first place not just reducing the potential damage when one does occur.Rubin215 said:
In terms of traffic safety; safest city in the world for all road users (car, lorry, bus, pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist) is Tokyo.
Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.
The simplistic conclusion you appear to be implying from this statement is that Tokyo has a low accident rate because it has a slow average traffic speed. That takes no account of the fact that Tokyo has an incredibly modern traffic infrastructure by most standards (almost totally rebuilt after WWII) and that the Japanese culture is based heavily around blindly following rules. It also does not look at the number of accidents that occur, why the occur or what can be done to reduce the further. Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.
I accept that if we had no speed we would have no accidents, but that is not practical given that all road users are doing so in order to travel thus they will require some speed. The question is how much speed is safe?
Likewise, Germany (a country with a culture that is very similar to our own) have large stretches of de-restricted motorways and have overall a much higher average motorway speed than we do yet their KSI rates are very similar to ours.
Rubin215 said:
Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."
This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
Just to be absolutely clear, I do not condone any form of ‘drink driving’. If/when I speed I accept the risks that are attached to that and manage the situation accordingly. While it is not a justification I would suggest that the majority of road users are ‘habitual speeders’ as independent surveys have shown that most drivers/riders regularly exceed the speed limit.This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
Rubin215 said:
Take that argument to it's logical conclusion then surely you'll be down at the local primary school gates lobbying to increase the speed limit on the grounds of road safety?
No, if you take it to it’s logical conclusion I will be lobbying for appropriate speed limits everywhere (including outside schools.) Appropriate limits are those that are set using detailed data and research to establish what is the safest and will involve the least number of people being involved in any form of serious road accident (either directly or by association with someone who was directly involved). This would mean that some limits may well be set higher than they are at the moment and some limits may be set lower than they are at the moment.Rubin215 said:
If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway (remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).
But I do get enough mental stimulation from driving at a reasonable speed but the key question is – what is a reasonable speed? As you say, inattention is the biggest cause of accidents which would indicate that a large number of driver are not getting enough mental stimulation. My point from your original statement was that by a driver/rider traveling 10mph slower than they would do normally will not necessarily make them safer as it will reduce the data input rate and will thus potentially increase the number of inattentive drivers on the road. (Not to mention the frustration caused to those road users caught behind the slow moving vehicle).Rubin215 said:
Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?
I totally agree that everyone should be giving full concentration 100% of the time but as human beings, we can’t achieve that. We can only continue to strive towards that ultimate goal but in the mean time, accept our limitations and build processes and systems around the fact that we are not perfect. Rubin215 said:
Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
I have read the government website and I agree with much of what is on there but remember, this is the same government department that was telling us that 30% of accidents were caused by speeding (well … actually …. it’s only about 4% where exceeding the speed limit was a contributing factor) where 40% of motorcycles on the road are not taxed (well …. Actually ….. it’s much much lower than that) and that speed cameras have caused a significant reduction in KSI figures even though hospital admissions are going up!www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
Have you read the details at www.safespeed.org.uk ?
IMHO the government policy with regards to road safety is more about keeping costs down and appearing to be doing something as it is about actually saving lives, but that’s a different debate.
Rubin215 said:
in the meantime, carry on being imortal...
It is exactly because I know than I am not immortal that I don’t just blindly accept any ‘one size fits all’ solution to any road safety item. I look at independent research and try to understand as much as possible of what is an incredibly complex, ever changing subject.I think that anyone who can make a statement such as
Rubin215 said:
Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves your chances of it (death or serious injury) not being today though!
is at best naïve and needs to undertake further and more detailed investigation into the subject. I find your idea quite funny - because the fact is you should be driving at or below the speed limit anyway.
So basically, you're admitting breaking the law - but for one day only, you're going to be a law abiding citizen. Maybe you should get all the muggers, shop lifters and rapists on board as well
So basically, you're admitting breaking the law - but for one day only, you're going to be a law abiding citizen. Maybe you should get all the muggers, shop lifters and rapists on board as well
It would be very interesting if one of the outcomes of this protest was that the number of accidents does not reduce, hopefully proving that it really IS bad driving that causes accidents,not speed!
The reduced fuel consumption should hit the treasury too, especially if the protest catches on!
Count me in !
The reduced fuel consumption should hit the treasury too, especially if the protest catches on!
Count me in !
black-k1 said:
Check out the very comprehensive site of the late Paul Smith at www.safespeed.org.uk
Comprehensive maybe, but many great pieces of fiction are. To cite it as a reliable source is nothing short of madness.gilberninvader said:
a) prove that the accident rate stays about the same, regardless of the speed limit( Thus proving Speed alone doesn't kill) Tiredness, lack of concentration, distractions, poor driving skills etc etc actually kills.
If a large number of people did this, and the accident rate was reduced, would you change your opinion on this, or just dismiss it as a coincidence?Edited by thewurzel on Friday 4th April 19:32
thewurzel said:
black-k1 said:
Check out the very comprehensive site of the late Paul Smith at www.safespeed.org.uk
Comprehensive maybe, but many great pieces of fiction are. To cite it as a reliable source is nothing short of madness.Simply on the ‘proven correct so far’ score Safe Speed is well ahead and for me that makes them a far more credible source than the government. You, of course, are free to believe what you wish but I know which ones I think would be madness to believe!
black-k1 said:
The sources the Safe Speed site references are reliable and respected. Independent reviews of Paul’s work have shown it to be reliable and creditable.
Quite the opposite, actually. Random posters on his forum excepted - there are an equal number of people posting on UFO forums 
Paul Smith often supported government statistics - when they fitted in with the pro speed message, of course.Safe Speed existed simply as a way of raising revenue for the site's creator - http://www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html
thewurzel said:
Safe Speed existed simply as a way of raising revenue for the site's creator - http://www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html
I think thats clearly wrong, he was passionate about what he believed that much is clear, regardless of whether it was all correct.Edited by slim_boy_fat on Friday 4th April 21:23
Oh boy, this is going to take ages...
Oh good, you read the TRL studies; so do I, this will be easy then.
Have a look at;
TRL report 440; "The characteristics of speeders" (Webster, Wells).
"Drivers justify their personal speeding choices by assuming they are 'ordinary, safe speeding drivers' while others are 'dangerous speeding drivers.'"
How about TRL report 492; "An analysis of police reports of fatal accidents involving motorcycles" (Lynam et al).
"Sixty percent of the accidents involving cars or larger vehicles were considered to be principally the fault of the motorcyclist, and in 44 percent of the cases this was due to excessive speed."
Or maybe TRL report 511; "The relationship between speed and accidents on rural single-carriageway roads" (Taylor, Baruya, Kennedy).
"Accident frequency for all categories of accident increased rapidly with mean speed- the total injury accident frequency increased with speed to the power of approximately 2.5 - thus indicating that a 10% increase in mean speed results in a 26% increase in the frequency of all injury accidents."
"The effect of speed on fatal and serious accidents was stronger (but not statistically significantly so) than for all accidents taken together. A 10% increase in mean speed would be expected to result in a 30% increase in the frequency of fatal and serious accidents."
TRL. Funnily enough...
Well, actually, speed is simply distance divided by time (there's your distance element) so distance is simply speed multiplied by time. Five metres behind a vehicle at 50 mph still takes longer for you to hit him when he slams on the anchors than five metres behind him at 60 mph. Simple calculation really...
Best practise, however, is to maintain a minimum two second gap to the vehicle in front, minimum four when its wet. (Only a fool breaks the two second rule, when it does pour you now make it four...).
The slower you are going, the more time you will have to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you, this isn't an excuse for sitting in someone else's boot.
Erm, sorry, but this is gibberish.
So flawed calculations plus gibberish equals...?
Simple physics actually; momentum equals mass times velocity (p=mv).
The faster you are going, the greater your momentum (unless your vehicle somehow sheds ballast...).
Blessed by God, undoubtedly, but thousands of others still die in road traffic collisions every year.
And you say that like it's a bad thing!
If only Britain had the same attitude!
Again, if you need to be going fast to concentrate adequately you should not be on the roads!
Probably just as well; as Confuscious say, "Once in hole, stop digging."
Excellent! Every day is a school day!
It's called humour. Y'know, the old Bloodrunners T-shirt "I am imortal... so far..."
And stop being silly; if everyones vehicle was limited to 1mph they would just walk and there would be an explosion of pavement rage and crossing congestion...
Now, turning to a much more worthy and wise adversory...
Okay, I'll be honest; I took one look at the irrational ramblings on the home page and went no further.
There may well be some useful info there somewhere (in every extremist's mind is a glimmer of reason) but I have better things to do than go look.
If the vehicle is in a road worthy condition prior to a journey then I would suggest that the reduction of 10mph will not significantly change the results of a catastrophic failure.All machinery has design limitations on it's component parts. This is as true for a modern car or motorcycle as it was for Stevenson's Rocket.
Eventually these parts will fail, possibly while in use, potentially catastrophically.
The closer to it's design limits any piece of machinery is used (whether this is age or performance related) the more likely one of it's components is to fail.
Any machine running at slower speed will take longer to wear out and will be less likely to fail than one being used at higher speed.
I have seen a perfectly serviced, well run in, two year old Fireblade throw a con-rod right through the front of the engine at less than 60 mph, locking the rear wheel and throwing the rider off before he had time to react. He was injured, but survived. The vehicle had been in perfectly road worthy condition.
What difference would the extra 10 mph have made? The engine would probably still have blown, but who knows the difference an extra 10 mph could have made to his injuries (oh and if anyone thinks 10 mph is nothing, try jogging straight into a wall and see what you think then).
Driver error/concentration/decision making (call it what you like) is the biggest single cause of road accidents.So how come folks in ye olde days managed to stay awake while steering a horse and cart? Ford model T? BSA Bantam? Triumph Herald?
Did the reduced "cruising speed" of these vehicles somehow make them massively more mentally stimulating?
Or have we, as a society, suddenly become numb to "normal" levels of stimulation?
This is just another excuse pedalled by the speed addict to explain his anti-social behaviour.
(I moved onto coke when I stopped getting a buzz from speed...)
And one potential way of reducing the incidence of RTC's is for everyone to reduce their speed.
Webster and Wells; quoted above.
Times change, move on.
Rather than the majority of drivers not getting enough mental stimulation I would argue that the majority of drivers do not pay enough attention to the task they are performing; driving or riding!
I think that anyone who can make a statement such as
Ah now, you've changed my original words, however I'm still happy to stand by them.Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
What absolute hogwash!
Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
TRL studies and yes.Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
Have a look at;
TRL report 440; "The characteristics of speeders" (Webster, Wells).
"Drivers justify their personal speeding choices by assuming they are 'ordinary, safe speeding drivers' while others are 'dangerous speeding drivers.'"
How about TRL report 492; "An analysis of police reports of fatal accidents involving motorcycles" (Lynam et al).
"Sixty percent of the accidents involving cars or larger vehicles were considered to be principally the fault of the motorcyclist, and in 44 percent of the cases this was due to excessive speed."
Or maybe TRL report 511; "The relationship between speed and accidents on rural single-carriageway roads" (Taylor, Baruya, Kennedy).
"Accident frequency for all categories of accident increased rapidly with mean speed- the total injury accident frequency increased with speed to the power of approximately 2.5 - thus indicating that a 10% increase in mean speed results in a 26% increase in the frequency of all injury accidents."
"The effect of speed on fatal and serious accidents was stronger (but not statistically significantly so) than for all accidents taken together. A 10% increase in mean speed would be expected to result in a 30% increase in the frequency of fatal and serious accidents."
Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).
State your source.Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.
Incorrect. Time without distance is meaningless. Your argument invites the suggestion that one vehicle tailgaiting another vehicle at 40mph is as more acceptable, or at least carries less risk, than one vehicle following another vehicle at a safe distance at 60mph. Best practise, however, is to maintain a minimum two second gap to the vehicle in front, minimum four when its wet. (Only a fool breaks the two second rule, when it does pour you now make it four...).
The slower you are going, the more time you will have to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you, this isn't an excuse for sitting in someone else's boot.
Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
A commonly raised argument based which remains true based on the fact that everything remains equal at zero. Unfortunately progress needs to be made and in a safe manner, which happens to be the 85th percentile. Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
See previous two responses and combine them.Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
Simple physics actually; momentum equals mass times velocity (p=mv).
The faster you are going, the greater your momentum (unless your vehicle somehow sheds ballast...).
Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.
Or, at the more extreme end of the scale, Richard Hammond.Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
In terms of traffic safety; safest city in the world for all road users (car, lorry, bus, pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist) is Tokyo.
Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.
So that's the only variable, is it? Could I also mention that Japan, as a whole, has the most disciplined drivers in the world, the least cases of roadrage and one of the highest standards of driver education?Coincidentally, the city with the slowest average traffic speed is... Tokyo.
If only Britain had the same attitude!
Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."
This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
The argument isn't "if I go faster I concentrate so much more", the argument is "if I go slower I concentrate less". You need an averaging rule to use this on a practical scale. The rule would be the 85th percentile.This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway
I'm not even going to start on this.Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
(remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).
Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?
Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
Read, acknowledged, reviewed.Your vehicle is a potentially dangerous, heavy and fast moving piece of machinery; don't you think you should be giving it your full concentration at all times when operating it?
Try this websit for a change; much more reasoned, much more respected,
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/managingspeedonourroads
Rawwr said:
Rubin215 said:
in the meantime, carry on being imortal...
Are you suggesting that if we drive 10mph below the speed limit that we'll live forever or are you just using inappropriate words and extreme parameter non-argument again?Rawwr said:
Your argument did consist of valid points (hidden in amongst the diatribe and rhetoric) but your fact without reason stance of debate is weak. People need to get from A to B and in a reasonable time, otherwise we could practically zero the accident rate by limiting all vehicles to 1mph. At 1mph everyone would get to where they're going and it's massively unlikely that anyone would die or be injured. However, it'd also take people several days or weeks to get to work and therefore is irrelevant.
Yes, people do need to get from A to B in a reasonable time; but they stand more chance of actually getting there by allowing enough time in the first place and sticking to a sensible speed. Look at the number of emergency services around the country who have moved from a full speed blue light policy to "Arrive Alive" with maximum speeds while responding.And stop being silly; if everyones vehicle was limited to 1mph they would just walk and there would be an explosion of pavement rage and crossing congestion...
Rawwr said:
You need to take the axis of speed against the an axis of practical usability and there will be a point of reason on that graph. It'll probably be around the 85th percentile.
And if everyone drove more slowly in the first place, that "magic" 85th percentile would also be slower.Now, turning to a much more worthy and wise adversory...
black-k1 said:
Rubin215 said:
What absolute hogwash!
Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
From www.safespeed.org.uk and yes, I believe it!Where do you find this stuff, and do you honestly believe it?
There may well be some useful info there somewhere (in every extremist's mind is a glimmer of reason) but I have better things to do than go look.
black-k1 said:
Rubin215 said:
Lets look at a 10 mph reduction in vehicle speed first, shall we?
Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).
It is a rider/drivers legal duty to ensure that his/her vehicle is in a road worthy condition. If the vehicle is not in a road worthy condition then reducing your speed by 10mph may well delay the occurrence of an incident but I would suggest that it is not likely to avoid it. In this case, a major contributing factor to any accident is the drivers’ decision to take a vehicle that is not road worthy onto the road.Less stress on your vehicle, tyres and brakes, so less chance of mechanical failure (still a top ten primary cause of road traffic collisions where someone is killed or seriously injured).
If the vehicle is in a road worthy condition prior to a journey then I would suggest that the reduction of 10mph will not significantly change the results of a catastrophic failure.
Eventually these parts will fail, possibly while in use, potentially catastrophically.
The closer to it's design limits any piece of machinery is used (whether this is age or performance related) the more likely one of it's components is to fail.
Any machine running at slower speed will take longer to wear out and will be less likely to fail than one being used at higher speed.
I have seen a perfectly serviced, well run in, two year old Fireblade throw a con-rod right through the front of the engine at less than 60 mph, locking the rear wheel and throwing the rider off before he had time to react. He was injured, but survived. The vehicle had been in perfectly road worthy condition.
What difference would the extra 10 mph have made? The engine would probably still have blown, but who knows the difference an extra 10 mph could have made to his injuries (oh and if anyone thinks 10 mph is nothing, try jogging straight into a wall and see what you think then).
black-k1 said:
Rubin215 said:
More time for you, the driver, to react to unexpected events on the roadway in front of you or from other road users.
More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
I agree with all of the above but I feel you are missing a fundamental point. The ‘decision making’ part of the process is done by a human being and not a machine. If you reduce the data input rate to a machine it will ‘happily’ sit in an idle mode until the next item of data is sent to it, at which point it will process the data with exactly the same degree of efficiency as the previous item of data and the next item of data. Human beings are not like that. If you give a clear set of rules and ask a human being to concentrate on a task and then provide them with a regular stimulus relating to that task, they will process information quickly and efficiently and generally make good sound decisions based on that events and the rule set. If you then start to remove some of the stimulus you will find that most are unable to concentrate on the task to the same degree and that their reaction times and decision making starts to deteriorate.More chance for your vehicle to respond safely to your input (more chance for your brakes to stop you if required, more chance for your tyres to grip under heavy braking or rapid steering).
In the event of your input failing to avoid a collision, less speed equals less momentum equals less force on impact.
Less force on impact means more chance for your vehicle or clothing safety features to protect you and your passengers.
Less force on impact also means less damage done to whatever (or whoever) your vehicle strikes.
Less force on impact also means your vital organs hit the inside of your body cavity with less force, therby reducing the possibility of serious or fatal injury.
Driver error/concentration/decision making (call it what you like) is the biggest single cause of road accidents.
Did the reduced "cruising speed" of these vehicles somehow make them massively more mentally stimulating?
Or have we, as a society, suddenly become numb to "normal" levels of stimulation?
This is just another excuse pedalled by the speed addict to explain his anti-social behaviour.
(I moved onto coke when I stopped getting a buzz from speed...)
black-k1 said:
Rubin215 said:
You only have to ask an experienced traffic cop, firefighter, paramedic or surgeon for evidence of the link between speed and survivability.
I have no doubt about the link between speed and survivability in the event of an accident but that is not the only point here. I can guarantee that 100% of people will survive totally uninjured, regardless of speed, any accident that does not happen. We need to concentrate on stopping accidents happening in the first place not just reducing the potential damage when one does occur.black-k1 said:
I accept that if we had no speed we would have no accidents, but that is not practical given that all road users are doing so in order to travel thus they will require some speed. The question is how much speed is safe?
Likewise, Germany (a country with a culture that is very similar to our own) have large stretches of de-restricted motorways and have overall a much higher average motorway speed than we do yet their KSI rates are very similar to ours.
Many, many variables on this one. German learner tuition is to a far higher standard than ours, road vehicles are on average newer, road infrastructure is much better. I don't have enough info to know if this is a fair comparison, however, anecdotaly from a German friend the majority of their autobahn accidents involve at least one fatality.Likewise, Germany (a country with a culture that is very similar to our own) have large stretches of de-restricted motorways and have overall a much higher average motorway speed than we do yet their KSI rates are very similar to ours.
black-k1 said:
Rubin215 said:
Now, how about this claim that "if drivers were restricted to speeds below this 85 percentile speed then accidents actually increased as the driver was not getting sufficient mental stimulation form driving to maintain appropriate levels of concentration."
This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
Just to be absolutely clear, I do not condone any form of ‘drink driving’. If/when I speed I accept the risks that are attached to that and manage the situation accordingly.This sound very like the "If I have a couple of pints I'm a better driver" argument so beloved of the habitual drunk; "If I go faster I concentrate so much more..." the rant maybe of the habitual speeder?
black-k1 said:
While it is not a justification I would suggest that the majority of road users are ‘habitual speeders’ as independent surveys have shown that most drivers/riders regularly exceed the speed limit.
And when my dad was my age, the majority of road users were drink drivers.Times change, move on.
black-k1 said:
Rubin215 said:
If you can't get enough "mental stimulation" from driving at a reasonable speed, quite frankly you are a danger to other road users and should not be on the public highway (remembering of course that "inattention" is still number one in the top ten primary causes of KSI incidents!).
But I do get enough mental stimulation from driving at a reasonable speed but the key question is – what is a reasonable speed? As you say, inattention is the biggest cause of accidents which would indicate that a large number of driver are not getting enough mental stimulation. My point from your original statement was that by a driver/rider traveling 10mph slower than they would do normally will not necessarily make them safer as it will reduce the data input rate and will thus potentially increase the number of inattentive drivers on the road. (Not to mention the frustration caused to those road users caught behind the slow moving vehicle).black-k1 said:
Rubin215 said:
in the meantime, carry on being imortal...
It is exactly because I know than I am not immortal that I don’t just blindly accept any ‘one size fits all’ solution to any road safety item. I look at independent research and try to understand as much as possible of what is an incredibly complex, ever changing subject.I think that anyone who can make a statement such as
Rubin215 said:
Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves your chances of it (death or serious injury) not being today though!
is at best naïve and needs to undertake further and more detailed investigation into the subject. Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves you chances of not being killed or seriously injured in a road accident today or any other day.
As evidence I quote Taylor, Baruya and Kennedy (quoted above);
"The percentage reduction in accident frequency per 1mile/h reduction in mean speed implied by the relationship developed for total accidents depends on the mean speed. It ranges from 9% at a mean speed of 27 miles/h to 4% at a mean speed of 60 miles/h."
rsv gone! said:
Where did the Green Cross Code man go or Buffy the squirrel?
OH, oh, oh, I wish I'd noticed this before.The Green Cross Man became an evil intergalactic bouncer, on the way spawning a son called Luke who grew up to eventually kill him (bit Oedipus there).
Buffy the squirrel grew up to become a really hot chick who moved into a career slaying vampires.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff