Slow versus fast.
Discussion
Theres much mileage, for want of a better word, made in the speed kills lobby, regarding the merits of why going slower is so much safer than going fast.
Theres a few *things* bother me regarding that POV, although i can understand why someone might "think" its safer to be going slowly.
Things like; Wheres the safety threshold actually lie?
So, wheres it actually become "not safe" (and i do mean NOT safe) as opposed to "thinking" its not safe?
Time and again, we hear the all pervading nonsense that speed kills, and indeed they throw statistics into the arena such as, travelling at 10 mph over the limit raises accident risk by 500%.....
Whys it not borne out in the real world then?
We should be having accidents EVERY time we travel, on almost every road, on every day!
But it dosent happen that way.
Theres a real flaw in the speed kills argument, and its because its based on bad science. Proper studies have NEVER been fully carried out to determine accident causation.
Oh, they say this or that, but at the end of the day, its just really their "opinion", based on flawed surveys, poorly collated stats and lies pure and simple.
On the other hand going too fast for the current situation is very highly likely to get you or someone else into an accident, but even that isnt as "guaranteed" as their statistics would have you believe.
I dont have any issues regarding "innapropriate" speeds, and i can take on board and identify why travelling at a speed thats too high for the scenario is dangerous.
But thats a far cry from "Speed Kills", now isnt it?
Theres a few *things* bother me regarding that POV, although i can understand why someone might "think" its safer to be going slowly.
Things like; Wheres the safety threshold actually lie?
So, wheres it actually become "not safe" (and i do mean NOT safe) as opposed to "thinking" its not safe?
Time and again, we hear the all pervading nonsense that speed kills, and indeed they throw statistics into the arena such as, travelling at 10 mph over the limit raises accident risk by 500%.....
Whys it not borne out in the real world then?
We should be having accidents EVERY time we travel, on almost every road, on every day!
But it dosent happen that way.
Theres a real flaw in the speed kills argument, and its because its based on bad science. Proper studies have NEVER been fully carried out to determine accident causation.
Oh, they say this or that, but at the end of the day, its just really their "opinion", based on flawed surveys, poorly collated stats and lies pure and simple.
On the other hand going too fast for the current situation is very highly likely to get you or someone else into an accident, but even that isnt as "guaranteed" as their statistics would have you believe.
I dont have any issues regarding "innapropriate" speeds, and i can take on board and identify why travelling at a speed thats too high for the scenario is dangerous.
But thats a far cry from "Speed Kills", now isnt it?
rospa said:
Not sure if I have got the wrong end of the stick....
BUT if you cannot stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road, then you are travelling at an inappropriate speed.
Even if that speed is 100mph? To use your quoted method (i agree with it) then if i can see that far, and can stop in the distance, then whats the problem with travelling at that speed? Irrespective of the law?
There is no problem, is there? Which incidentally is my whole point!
>> Edited by deltaf on Tuesday 4th November 22:40
Can I please add a bit of lateral thinking to this thread?
A speed limit (ie. a number with a red ring round it, painted on a bit of tin) is, by its very nature, arbitrary. It does not, and cannot, indicate the maximum safe speed at any given time. This depends on a number of factors, including time of day, traffic conditions and the skill and experience of the driver. Even plod themselves acknowledge this fact although usually, it must be said, by erring on the side of caution (eg. Its a maximum speed, not a target !!) Let me give you a couple of examples:
A 20mph limit imposed outside a school might, actually, be too high when it is school chucking out time and a load of mothers in MPVs are parked next to the school gates so that the dear iccle wiccle kiddywinks don’t get exhausted by walking 20 yards to somewhere where it is more safe and sensible to park. Alternatively, 45mph might be perfectly safe at the same location at 0230 on a Sunday morning.
Conversely, the speed limit for a motorway is 70mph. It might be perfectly safe to do 120mph in the middle of the night, 80-85 mph during normal conditions, but, in dense fog, you might be pushing your luck doing more than 35mph, whatever time of day it is.
My gripe, and that of the majority of contributors to this forum, is that those arbitrary limits are currently being enforced arbitrarily by the "Safety scamera tax-gathering partnerships" and, by so doing, are alienating a sizeable chunk of "Middle England" who, until now, have been fairly supportive of the police. When, as in my personal case, plod do sweet FA about it when I was mugged or had my house turned over by burglars (OK, OK - I lie - in the former case I was offered "counselling "…..
) but wish to chuck the fu
ng book at me when they find me doing 83 in a 70, in light traffic, in perfect visibility, and at the bottom of a hill …. Then, as I am sure you can see, it leaves a rather nasty taste in the mouth about "Good ‘Ol British Justice."
I am certain that I am not alone in these feelings!!!
Thats it. Rant over. Off to beddy-byes (hoping, of course, that burglars don’t turn up tonight. Of course, if they do, and there’s a scamera van that catches ‘em doing 45 in a 30 during their getaway, then I shall feel so much more secure in my bed tonight, won’t I …….)
>> Edited by rs1952 on Tuesday 4th November 23:59
A speed limit (ie. a number with a red ring round it, painted on a bit of tin) is, by its very nature, arbitrary. It does not, and cannot, indicate the maximum safe speed at any given time. This depends on a number of factors, including time of day, traffic conditions and the skill and experience of the driver. Even plod themselves acknowledge this fact although usually, it must be said, by erring on the side of caution (eg. Its a maximum speed, not a target !!) Let me give you a couple of examples:
A 20mph limit imposed outside a school might, actually, be too high when it is school chucking out time and a load of mothers in MPVs are parked next to the school gates so that the dear iccle wiccle kiddywinks don’t get exhausted by walking 20 yards to somewhere where it is more safe and sensible to park. Alternatively, 45mph might be perfectly safe at the same location at 0230 on a Sunday morning.
Conversely, the speed limit for a motorway is 70mph. It might be perfectly safe to do 120mph in the middle of the night, 80-85 mph during normal conditions, but, in dense fog, you might be pushing your luck doing more than 35mph, whatever time of day it is.
My gripe, and that of the majority of contributors to this forum, is that those arbitrary limits are currently being enforced arbitrarily by the "Safety scamera tax-gathering partnerships" and, by so doing, are alienating a sizeable chunk of "Middle England" who, until now, have been fairly supportive of the police. When, as in my personal case, plod do sweet FA about it when I was mugged or had my house turned over by burglars (OK, OK - I lie - in the former case I was offered "counselling "…..
) but wish to chuck the fung book at me when they find me doing 83 in a 70, in light traffic, in perfect visibility, and at the bottom of a hill …. Then, as I am sure you can see, it leaves a rather nasty taste in the mouth about "Good ‘Ol British Justice." I am certain that I am not alone in these feelings!!!
Thats it. Rant over. Off to beddy-byes (hoping, of course, that burglars don’t turn up tonight. Of course, if they do, and there’s a scamera van that catches ‘em doing 45 in a 30 during their getaway, then I shall feel so much more secure in my bed tonight, won’t I ……
.) >> Edited by rs1952 on Tuesday 4th November 23:59
The essence of this problem is the way the phrase is taken to mean more than it actually does. Taken literally, speed does kill. But, only if you hit something.
If you have an accident, the faster you're going the more likely you are to kill someone. Speed kills.
The problem is, the phrase is taken to suggest that speed causes more accidents which I don't necessarily believe to be true at all, and have never seen any statistics to prove it either.
This is where things go wrong, I think.
If you have an accident, the faster you're going the more likely you are to kill someone. Speed kills.
The problem is, the phrase is taken to suggest that speed causes more accidents which I don't necessarily believe to be true at all, and have never seen any statistics to prove it either.
This is where things go wrong, I think.
:engagesdevilsadvocatemode:
TRL 421 "The effects of drivers’ speed on the frequency of road accidents" is more recent than 323 and totally relevant.
The project examined 300 sections of road, made ~2 million observations re speed and questioned 10,000 drivers.
One result of this independent research project , the faster the traffic moves on average in a particular set of circumstances, the more crashes there are.
Also the consequences of the accident tends to rise with the speed and weight of the vehicles involved.
Not news to some but there are quite a few on this site that might find that surprising.
Discuss
:devilsadvocatemodeoff:
TRL 421 "The effects of drivers’ speed on the frequency of road accidents" is more recent than 323 and totally relevant.
The project examined 300 sections of road, made ~2 million observations re speed and questioned 10,000 drivers.
One result of this independent research project , the faster the traffic moves on average in a particular set of circumstances, the more crashes there are.
Also the consequences of the accident tends to rise with the speed and weight of the vehicles involved.
Not news to some but there are quite a few on this site that might find that surprising.
Discuss
:devilsadvocatemodeoff:
This all hinges on whether or not you happen to believe that TRL actually reported such findings correctly and without spin.
Hows it possible to reach that position of trusting them, when they wont even make TRL323 freely available to the public at zero cost by withdrawing their "copyright" over it?
Incidentally trl323 was paid for out of public funds.
Hows it possible to reach that position of trusting them, when they wont even make TRL323 freely available to the public at zero cost by withdrawing their "copyright" over it?
Incidentally trl323 was paid for out of public funds.
deltaf said:
This all hinges on whether or not you happen to believe that TRL actually reported such findings correctly and without spin.
Hows it possible to reach that position of trusting them, when they wont even make TRL323 freely available to the public at zero cost by withdrawing their "copyright" over it?
Incidentally trl323 was paid for out of public funds.
:devilsadvocatemodebackon:
That is getting into discussing freedom of information act which I'm not sure is all that helpful regardless of opinion.
I could support your opinion that information was being suppressed if it was not possible to buy the report quite freely. Clearly you can cost £25.00 for TRL 323 and £35.00 for TRL 421.
Anyway the significance of TRL 323 is what exactly?
:devilsadvocatemodeoff:
Suspect I know what you gonna say but let's have it anyway.
please note smileys!
>> Edited by flat in fifth on Wednesday 5th November 12:59
flat in fifth said:
One result of this independent research project , the faster the traffic moves on average in a particular set of circumstances, the more crashes there are.
Which would mean our Motorways must have the highest accident rate of any roads in the country?
flat in fifth said:
Also the consequences of the accident tends to rise with the speed and weight of the vehicles involved.
No argument from me here, it's basic physics. In actual fact, the consequences would tend to rise in proprotion to the square of the speed I suspect,(e=1/2mv^2)
Mr2Mike said:
One result of this independent research project , the faster the traffic moves on average in a particular set of circumstances, the more crashes there are.
Which would mean our Motorways must have the highest accident rate of any roads in the country?
:devilsadvocatemodeon:
My understanding of that, as the wording is not mine, the significant part is in a particular set of circumstances
ie comparing apples with apples
:devilsadvocatemodeoff:
My personal view of that is that if you follow it to a "logical" (pah!) conclusion and reduce speeds to zero or some other lowest common de-numpty-nator figure then the crash rate will be zero or very low.
Now what is shape of the curve between the two points? Some people think its a straight line which IMO is total b.ll..ks.
Which might explain a lot of what is happening right now though.
Anyway people asked for statistical evidence and personal belief is that the TRL boffs genuinely are as objective as they come. Could be wrong there of course.
I had an accident over twenty years ago. It was head on, I was driving a SWB Land Rover, and the other guy a Ford Escort Estate. I won.
This guy was turning right, across my path, and never really looked at what was coming. His decision to cross was so late that the collision was head on rather than a T-Bone job. I sent him into the middle of next week!
The BiB were dead chuffed, as it turned out that the (unconcious and badly injured) driver and his (also unconcious and badly injured) passenger/ Brother were burglars on their way home from a job. Back of their car was full of swag!
Anyway, my point is this. I was driving at the speed limit, 30 mph. As I understand it, he was too. Not speeding partially caused this accident. Had I driven at my usual 45 mph on that road I would have missed him. Of course, had I been going slower the same would be true, but that is not the point of my argument.
Also had the burglar been looking ahead instead of behind him for signs of the BiB he might have waited for me to pass.
This guy was turning right, across my path, and never really looked at what was coming. His decision to cross was so late that the collision was head on rather than a T-Bone job. I sent him into the middle of next week!
The BiB were dead chuffed, as it turned out that the (unconcious and badly injured) driver and his (also unconcious and badly injured) passenger/ Brother were burglars on their way home from a job. Back of their car was full of swag!
Anyway, my point is this. I was driving at the speed limit, 30 mph. As I understand it, he was too. Not speeding partially caused this accident. Had I driven at my usual 45 mph on that road I would have missed him. Of course, had I been going slower the same would be true, but that is not the point of my argument.
Also had the burglar been looking ahead instead of behind him for signs of the BiB he might have waited for me to pass.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff