imlach

That's fine with me. It wasn't about your specific speeding (or lack of it), but about speeding as a concept.


Splitting hairs I see
The momentum carried into the accident will determine the injuries caused.
Momentum is proportional to speed & mass. The mass if fixed, the speed is not.

Ray_li

Jaycee (www.alpha-telecom.co.uk) has a group buy on at the mo for garage door openers that messes with laser guns

Ray

imlach

Artic having a blowout. Your car suffering a blowout. Someone coming across from the other carriageway. Person you're overtaking having a heart attack and losing control. All instantaneous events you couldn't forsee.

Finally!!!

hades

According to an IAM tutor I went out with the other day 60% of accidents are caused by people going into the back of people. You could argue that if you're going along at 100mph, you're very unlikely to have someone go into the back of you, and so avoid more than half of all accidents.

70% of accidents also happen near junctions. Ergo, junctions kill. Ban junctions!!

Dracoro

Given the odds of those things happening, I (and 99.99% of others) will take the chance. At 70mph it's still gonna be messy.

the keyword is SEVERITY. speed affects the SEVERITY of the accident. In isolation it does NOT CAUSE the accident, something ELSE has to contribute.


Or try this - tell me how speed can cause a crash if there are no other contributary factors. Any example you can please.

hades

Next bright idea - Automatic Reduction (of momentum) in Severe Emergencies. When you nail the brakes, the car throws away all unnecesary weight - spare wheel, ejects the fuel, sound proofing etc. Therefore, mass is no longer constant, crash severity is reduced.

imlach

...severity is proportional to injuries received.
Higher severity = death.

Ergo, speeding kills.

Take excessive speed out of the equation, and we'd have less deaths. Period. How hard do you want to make it?

hedgehog

There is actually very good research to show that there are ideal speeds at which motorists should travel along roads from a safety perspective, it is called the 85th percentile rule (well something like that depending on who is relating it) Interestingly drivers travelling at significantly greater or significantly less than this speed have an increased chance of accidents. On many roads the posted limit is less than, and in some cases considerably less than, this 85th percentile speed.

As has been pointed out on many previous occasions motorways (if you are lucky) have the highest average speed of any road in the UK and they are also the safest roads. If your chances of death related solely to your velocity motorways would be expected to be the most dangerous roads in the UK.

While I can appreciate that there may be people on this forum who say they have never exceeded the speed limit i personally don't believe them. I think what is also important, and the message that is totally missed by the ill informed "speed kills" slogan, is being able to stop on your own side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear. If we had a day when everyone drove more than 3 seconds behind the car in front and at a speed such that they could stop in the distance they could see to be clear and a day when everone drove at exactly the speed limit which day would result in fewer accidents? I think this highlights the limitations of speed limits and the lack of logic in their strict enforcement.

Paul Garvin, the CC in Durham, has no speed cameras and is actually issuing fewer and fewer speed tickets each year, he doesn't see that travelling in excess of the speed limit is a major factor in accidents and asserts that in those accidents which do occur at greater than the posted limit there are usually other factors, such as drink or a stolen car, driving the problem. He is seeing falling road accident and fatality figures in Durham and bases his road safety policy around sensible policing and education for motorists.

Last year accidents at 743 camera sites actually increased, and that is even from the government figures. Many of the counties with the highest density of cameras also saw an increase in road fatalities, again according to government figures.

Unfortunately bad driving can not be defined as "speeding" and in many instances posted limits are actually too low to be safe and are, in some cases, designed purely for maximum motorist entrappment potential. Bad driving can not be caught on camera and this is why the trend in deaths on our roads has slowly moved, over the last 10 years, from downwards to upwards despite advances in car safety and medical techniques.

As an interesting aside the US state of Montana had, for some years, no speed limits outside of built up areas. Many people, and car clubs, went to the area to legally drive very fast indeed on public roads. Most residents drove at the speed at which they felt safe (which is usually very close to the 85th percentile) and those opposed to "speed" announced that the streets would run with blood. During those years the state recorded it's lowest ever number of fatalities on the roads.

imlach

Maybe I'm beginning to realise your issue...

If the slogan was "Speeding kills" rather than "Speed kills", would that be better???

imlach

I also think the message is focussed more at urban driving rather than A-roads or motorways.

Speeding in suburban areas is FAR more dangerous than on motorways.

Dracoro

I see you are changing tact. First you say speed kills, now it's 'excessive' speed. Which is it?

Using your logic above, walls kill as if you take walls out of the equation then there'd be less deaths.

If speeding kills, how come no-one died when I was on the aforementioned motorway at 100mph? If speeding kills then someone would have died right? At the end of the day, crashes happen because of a number of contributary factors. The speed may be ONE contributary factor but it won't be the ONLY. Is that so hard to understand?

The speed limits aren't always the best indicator as driving at 28mph may be using excessive speed. It all depends on the conditions.

imlach

As I said in my previous post, the semantics of the "speed kills" campaign is perhaps confusing. Does it really mean to say "speeding kills" or "excessive speed for the conditions kills".

Excessive speed certainly does kill.
Speed does kill at a fundamental level. In one particular accident, someone may have survived at 60mph, but not 100mph.

Dracoro

Sorry, didn't see your previous post (took too long typing my reply ) but yes, excessive speed can kill. However, what defines what is excessive is determined by the conditions.

In your statement above, would 61mph have killed? Depends on the conditions and the driver of course. The speed limits also don't necessarily reflect what is safe (this is what I have real problem with). In many cases, a 30mph is too fast and in a lot of cases the 70mph motorway limit is too slow. The problem with the government/police mantra that 'speed kills' is causing people to concentrate on this one factor more than the others. It's the other factors that cause most accidents (the last official figures I saw stated that 7.3% of accidents were caused by people exceeding the speed limit) and attention is being taken away from them.

I believe the biggest cause of crashes is inattention and lack of concentration.

imlach

I think we've highlighted here the debates they may have had when coming up with the slogan to bring speed to the attention of drivers.

"Excessive speed kills" - makes people think that the current speed limits are "safe", which is incorrect.

"Speeding kills" - same issue.

"Speed kills" - short & sharp, and causes people to think more generally about speed perhaps??

Or maybe I'm crediting the ad agency with far more analysis than we are going through


Impatientness/rage/selfishness is also a big factor - ie, A-road overtaking, accidents at junctions/urban areas etc.

Not to mention those that are the CAUSE of accidents, but are not involved in the accident.

Huxley

That's utter b0llox


What if the wall is made of straw or paper

That would not kill you

Chins

You need a WR Blue STI with Gold anti radar wheels. Face the facts that you are 500% more lightly to attract the attention of a radar driving a gay icons car. Maybe the Chav grills also make an easy target for radar. My final thought is down to the surface area you presented as a target. Driving at 45% on a straight piece of dual carriageway made you easy meat.

Jonathan
Radar reflecting Silver Honda Accord

Vegescoob

Let me lob a small grenade in here. I've thought about this issue of speed cameras and all the other surveillance systems we are surrounded by. Some of you will not agree but I am coming to the conclusion that this whole speed cameras thing is a largescale experiment to see how the behavior of the majority can be controlled by technology which as it advances needs less and less human intervention.We know the cameras don't catch bad driving uninsured drivers etc. That's not the point. The politicians need to control the mainly law abiding majority. Next thing will be GPS speed control which could also be used to control when and where you could drive. If the population accepts all this why would they then object to having a chip inserted under their skin. For their own good of course.

hedgehog

GPS speed control (ISA) is currently under test at Leeds University with the mapping of the country, for the planned implementation, to be complete by next September. Initially it is likely that insurance companies will want the GPS logging devices fitted to high risk cars.

However, you are basically correct. The point of the cameras is to put the infrastructure in place for the new "Department of Personal Mobility" and also to sow the seeds that control = safety. The personal motorcar is a very worrying thing for the government as soon you will have to show your ID card to book plane or train tickets and probably to get on the bus as well. This makes it easy for them to track you unless you happen to own a car. Car owners can hop in their car and pop out 100 miles away in only a few hours and clearly that has to stop.

While there will always be those who choose to argue that cameras are safety devices and that they have no concerns for their personal freedom there will be others, perhaps some who fought against Hitler or Stalin, who will see the risks. We all remember the old cold war spy movies where our hero had to drive down a road protected by guard posts at each end to monitor your movements and time your journey. Watching it we understood why people risked their lives to get over the Berlin Wall, we could understand how dying might be better than living under that level of oppression and surveillance.

Now, on a forum dedicated to performance cars of the type that will be first against the wall come the revolution, we find that there are people who would speak up in favour of the levels of oppression that those from the USSR died to try and escape from.

The personal tagging has already been suggested and an initial version is under discussion in the USA, just so they can track you when on foot as well:

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,....html/wn_ascii

Apple

Hedgehog - I recognise the wording of some of your (earlier) post straight out of Roadcraft

Imlach - you're getting the gist of things now otherwise Andy Green would be classed as public enemy no. 1 and Dubya wouldn't bother with small-fry like Osama and Saddam as he'd be classed as a mass murderer beryond compare as he's the world land speed record holder

Speed is "inappropriate" when it is combined with other things - essentially obstructions to the ability to speed in a environment and how the driver deals with them - this could be at 150mph or 2mph. The governments of whatever party over the previous x years have installed speed "limits" at some point and how relevant they are in today's society would fill many more posts...

Modern roads are designed to "persuade" drivers to adopt suitable speeds based upon the layout and the information available - a slower limit road will be tighter bends etc and less forward viewing than a "faster" road. It doesn't mean that and open road has to be taken at faster speeds but it may be if the conditions allow.

As for "incidents," it's the deformations caused by impacts that kill people rather than the impacts themselves (explains how people have had parachutes fail, landed through tress and survived instead of been spooned up from a puddle )

One small personal gripe, I know that drivers have to use all the information available whilst on a journey, but it's always seems to be the motorist's fault if an incident happens - child / drunk runs out etc. There never seems to be a good belting for a kid running out into a road without looking (assuming they survive )

Andy

hedgehog

There is a lot to be said for the Tufty Club and the Green Cross Code, however I believe that someone recently sued after a Duke of Edinburgh walk because her feet were sore.

It is clearly the responsibility of the motorist to do everything he or she can to avoid coming into conflict with another road user or pedestrian. What is worth remembering however is that it is, relatively, common for a pedestrian to enter the carriageway to get knocked down but rare for a vehicle to enter the walkway to strike a pedestrian. Motorists do not while away their idle hours mowing down innocent children and walkers but the very people most keen to complain about safety are prone to wandering into the path of a moving lump of metal.

In fact, and to be fair, the official cause to which the police attribute over 80% of incidents involving a pedestrian is "entered the carriageway without looking." It is also interesting to note that calculations based upon goverment figures estimate the average speed of a pedestrian impact at just under 12mph. Again this is hardly evidence of speeding drivers mowing down the innocent pedestrian.

We all have to take responsibility for our own actions and motorists must take great care to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions but, unfortunately, current law enforcement, and even some people on here, would lead you to believe that 30mph is perfectly safe and 31mph is a criminal act that will certainly lead you to disaster and destruction.

That the emergency services can drive large and unwieldy vehicles at high speed in streets with a high density of traffic and pedestrians while maintaining an excellent accident record shows that alert and well trained drivers can be safe even in the most unfavourable conditions. Having some idiot believe that if they stick below 30mph then they will be safe and will have no need to pay attention or be aware of the conditions is inviting disaster and is, possibly, why the cameras and the current focus on speed enforcement are presiding over a rise in fatalities on our roads. The anti-speed zombies are killing people on our roads and it could be you or I next.

Apple

hear hear

r32

The severity of an incident or accident is not soley related to speed.
A great deal is determined now by the design of the vehicle and how the energy is distributed and dissipated. run into a concrete block at 20 in an A35 and your dead. But in a modern vehicle the occupants would walk away at double the speed in certain vehicles. Also pedestrian injuries are hugely affected by the materials and shape of the front of the vehicle.
The factual information provided by hedgehog also shows that there is a speed above and below which travelling becomes more dangerous and accidents more likely.
Speed kills is too easy, its a complex issue and road safety is not helped by this one item focus. it would be better if we were to focus on the basic causes of accidents and improve driving skills and road improvements in dangerous places.

imlach

However, all the other attributes of an accident are fixed, with speed being the variable factor over & above the others which can affect severity.

This is especially true in an urban environment where there are a lot of vulnerable people (pedestrians/cyclists etc) whose survival greatly depends upon speed of impact.

Driving around an urban area at 60mph is without question going to carry more risk of more severe injuries than if one drove around at 30mph. Time taken to stop, time taken to think about avoidance, others not expecting cars to be approaching at 60mph etc etc.

imlach

Not "safe".....but safer.

That's the message that should be being given out. I quite agree, driving at 30mph in a 30mph limit does not make it "safe", but it makes things "safer".

Driving at 40mph in a 30mph limit really cannot be justified as carrying the same risk given all other factors are equal.

r32

Not safer if we increase the risk of an accident. The whole issue is accident avoidance. Not presupposingthat you ARE going to crash........

Dracoro

That's right, hence my comment that 20mph on a typical motorway is far LESS safe than driving at 80mph on the same motorway. No crash is better than a low speed one.

Diablo

Easy..

The child caused the accident. No child = no accident.

Alternatively, man a hits and kills child at 30 mph. Man b, being some 2 miles down the road at this point misses the child altogether, because the child is still in the sweetshop

there are literally an infinite number of other factors.

imlach

Now you're getting into 'fate'
A Hindu approach to road safety IIRC

hedgehog

Yes but all other factors are not equal, in many 30mph limits you can be shown to be more likely to have an accident at 30mph than at 40mph just because of the effects of the 85th percentile effect. So, in truth, driving at 40 mph can be safer.

There is no question that there are nutter drivers but it is interesting that on a given road many drivers tend towards driving at the 85th percentile speed and so appear to have some inbuilt tendancy for self preservation. No surprise there really.

The most survivable accident is one that doesn't happen and when you factor this in with the stats which show that almost everyone exceeds the speed limit and that the average impact speed with a pedestrian is just under 12mph you will have to consider that the majority of drivers are actually quite good at minimising the risk to themselves and others. People tend to speed in places where they believe it to be safer, and in general the figures show that they are correct as they tend to the 85th percentile speed. Strict speed limit enforcement forces them to abandon this ability to limit risk and in many cases forces them to travel at a speed which actually increases the risk of an accident. It also encourages many drivers, who prefer to drive with their brains switched off, to believe they are safe at the posted limit. To give you some idea of how many of these drivers there are on the roads watch the middle lane of the motorway and note how many people sit there like zombies happy that the state considers their actions safe while they are just ready to safely kill someone by one of the real reasons for road accidents.

Tiggs

Speed Kills is just an advert to get you to think (good luck to them with you lot)


The "just say no" advert didnt then go on to explain that you didnt have to say no to everything..it was just drugs.....ppl didnt go round saying "ohhhhh, they are soooo wrong cause i said no to a jam sandwhich im ok still"

its just to get ppl to drive slower, no bad thing.