There is no linear correlation between either liklihood of crashing, or severity as you seem to suggest.
Maybe not linear, but there
is a correlation. Just to illustrate a point, I don't think anyone would crash if we all traveled around at 5mph. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Though regarding the "severity" you even said yourself, "Obvously a higher speed crash will be more damaging" so I don't really understand why you're disagreeing with me.
Wrong. The stats cannot show cause, no stats covering the entire population on road users can. They are indicative of trends, from which the "speed kills" mantra can be clearly debunked.
I don't see what you're saying here. "The stats cannot show cause"? Isn't that the table you pasted? Explain how the stats you posted shows clearly that speed isn't a factor in a lot of accidents?
To reduce risk is sensible, but to take one aspect of risk and to try to apply it to all situations is nonsense.
I'm not applying it to all situations. I never have done. As I started in my last post, there are a lot of situations where speed isn't so much of a problem. However, the situations where high speeds
are a problem are plentiful.
You again correlate "bad driving" with "speed".
No. That's a pretty meaningless statement. "speed" could mean anything. High speed? Low speed? No speed? In what environment? In what car? etc etc
What I do equate to bad driving is selecting the wrong speed in the wrong situation - as so many people do. Nothing more and nothing less.
I don't have a problem with traveling at 100mph on a clear stretch of motorway at 3am in dry weather. However, I do have a problem with traveling at 60mph through a tight residential area. Traveling at that speed in that situation WILL increase the risk of you having an accident. Therefore, there is a correlation between speed and the risk of accident. How can you possibly deny this?
The more time you have, the more likely you are to be able to react to a situation and prevent an accident from happening. The faster you go, the less time you have to react, to the point where if you go too fast you're unable to react in time. It's not hard. It's just a fact.
There's a big deer park near where I live, in Woburn (you may know it, they have a tiger moth rally there each year). There's a road that goes through the park and each year tens of deer get killed because some people go too fast, not leaving themselves enough time to react.
I watched "Traffic Cops" on TV tonight. (exciting life, I know!
). One guy lost control on a corner almost hitting on comming traffic because he was going to fast. Another guy came off the road completely, again, because he was travelling too fast. How can you deny that there's a correlation?
Anyway... WHAT'S THIS GOT TO DO WITH AVIATION?!
Can we not just leave this thread? I'm sure we're all fine drivers etc etc. I think we're just arguing semantics which is a waste of time.