New Police Tactics M4
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossbow,
I'm sure my response is of absolutely no consolation whatsoever to your ex-girlfriend. However, it was not the fact that a driver was speeding that her sister was killed, it was his/her inappropriate use of speed in relation to the environment or conditions in which it happened.
I'm sure my response is of absolutely no consolation whatsoever to your ex-girlfriend. However, it was not the fact that a driver was speeding that her sister was killed, it was his/her inappropriate use of speed in relation to the environment or conditions in which it happened.
Crossbow
Correction. Speed DOES NOT kill.
If speed killed then how did "Dead Dog" manage to drive a 'car' at Mach 1?
How did all those Concorde passengers survive their brush with death at Mach 2+?
The speed kills statement is factually incorrect. Speed does not in itself kill, inappropriate use of speed might, but not speed. As I travel the M1 on a fairly regular basis I get overtaken by lots of vehicles speeding faster than I, but there aren't masses of dead at each junction. In fact the last accident I witnessed on the M1 was caused by slow speed not high speed. And our motorways are still the safest in the country. Please do not trot out the speed kills argument, those with half a brain see though it and it loses its impact.
Correction. Speed DOES NOT kill.
If speed killed then how did "Dead Dog" manage to drive a 'car' at Mach 1?
How did all those Concorde passengers survive their brush with death at Mach 2+?
The speed kills statement is factually incorrect. Speed does not in itself kill, inappropriate use of speed might, but not speed. As I travel the M1 on a fairly regular basis I get overtaken by lots of vehicles speeding faster than I, but there aren't masses of dead at each junction. In fact the last accident I witnessed on the M1 was caused by slow speed not high speed. And our motorways are still the safest in the country. Please do not trot out the speed kills argument, those with half a brain see though it and it loses its impact.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, maybe the phrase wasn't factually correct. Maybe I should have said " going to fast kills". But at the end of the day, the actual words dont make a difference.... or do they...
What would these people think?
However, Home office research has also shown that a 1mph reduction in the average speed of vehicles on a given length of road will equal a 5% reduction in collisions.
But to really understand that speed kills perhaps you should read
this
What would these people think?
However, Home office research has also shown that a 1mph reduction in the average speed of vehicles on a given length of road will equal a 5% reduction in collisions.
But to really understand that speed kills perhaps you should read
this
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It's not speed that kills, it's the kinetic energy, which increases with the square of the speed, so a vehicle travelling at 85 mph has about 1.5 times the ke of one at 70.
Given that you've no ATC/TCAS, and that 50% of the population is below average intelligence, you have to be increasing your chances of being involved in a major accident if you go faster.
Given that you've no ATC/TCAS, and that 50% of the population is below average intelligence, you have to be increasing your chances of being involved in a major accident if you go faster.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Out there
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airborne,
at last someone has the grace to bring this thread back into the realms of aviation, i was begining to wonder if i had mistakenly wandered onto the 'Top Gear' website.
at last someone has the grace to bring this thread back into the realms of aviation, i was begining to wonder if i had mistakenly wandered onto the 'Top Gear' website.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
initial inquiries "support the theory that speed was a significant factor
What was the speed limit on the road?
What speed was he doing?
Was that speed approproate to the road conditions at the time?
But.... could the press and police be jumping to conclusions and er speculating over the cause before the full facts are known?
Over 10 years ago in my town, a lady and one of her children were killed when she collieded with a lorry on a bypass. Everyone called for a lowering of the speed limits because the road was so dangerous after this accident.
At the inquest, it was found that she had turned round to look at one of the children in the back and crossed the centre line and hit the lorry.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you have to be increasing your chances of being involved in a major accident if you go faster.
Crossbow
What those people would think is no more relevant than what any other would think, and clearly one of them though speeding OK. They had no special eduction in road safety. They would know no more about crash investigation than any other member of the public. You are falling into the modern media trap of assuming that involvement in a type of incident gives immediate expertise: that the parents of someone killed by a child molester knows about how to prevent the offense, or the family of those killed in a train crash know all about rail safety. How do you justify the suggestion?
I agree that inappropriate speed, a dangerous speed, was probably a factor as stated. However I never advacated a dangerous speed, and you have not bothered to explain why you think the speed limit is safe, let alone why you think driving above it is always unsafe. I was nearly killed by a lorry driver who was driving too fast. He was doing 35 mph on a village street. That was just 5 mph below the speed limit for that road. It was not an illegal speed. But unsafe speed? Yes.
The lazy assumption that the speed limit is correct suggests that you are the dangerous driver here, not those that drive at 80 on a motorway. Blind adherence to speed limits in poor conditions has caused some of the most dangerous driving I have seen. That is why "speed kills" is such a stupid statement to use.
The article you link to discusses speed on urban streets. No-one here advocates speeding there, so it is completely irrelevant to the discussion (which had you not bothered to read, the posts here or the article?)
Crossbow
So link 1 - inappropriate use of speed kills 4!! Note the Volvo driver was uninjured - so perhaps better training for learner drivers may be appropriate.
Nice 2nd link - proves nothing. If I could find the report, and I can't be bothered cos I am just grabbing lunch before flying again, I think it was the London Ambulance Service who had stated that speed bumps may be killing more accident victims (get to hospital too late, because the ambulance had to slow down for "traffic calming measures") than may be being saved by of the traffic calming measures.
Just as with anything in life there has to be a balance. Reduced speed limits in areas of housing or schools - fair play. But the speed limit on most motorways is now inappropriately slow. The speed limit on motorways is ignored by the majority and it is actually idiots with the attitude "Well I am doing the speed limit so I am staying in the outside lane" who cause many of the accidents on major roads. Caused because instead of moving to the left lane they cause bunching, which causes tailgating, which causes excessive use of brakes which leads to accidents. So again inappropriate use of speed. There should actually be a minimum speed limit on major routes (except when weather precludes otherwise). That way if you aren't prepared to travel at the speed of the route get off it.
Thank God tomorrow is Friday so I can look forward to another 3 hours on our motorway network.
And the sun is shining above cloud, and the sky is blue, and relax. Mission bubble on.
So link 1 - inappropriate use of speed kills 4!! Note the Volvo driver was uninjured - so perhaps better training for learner drivers may be appropriate.
Nice 2nd link - proves nothing. If I could find the report, and I can't be bothered cos I am just grabbing lunch before flying again, I think it was the London Ambulance Service who had stated that speed bumps may be killing more accident victims (get to hospital too late, because the ambulance had to slow down for "traffic calming measures") than may be being saved by of the traffic calming measures.
Just as with anything in life there has to be a balance. Reduced speed limits in areas of housing or schools - fair play. But the speed limit on most motorways is now inappropriately slow. The speed limit on motorways is ignored by the majority and it is actually idiots with the attitude "Well I am doing the speed limit so I am staying in the outside lane" who cause many of the accidents on major roads. Caused because instead of moving to the left lane they cause bunching, which causes tailgating, which causes excessive use of brakes which leads to accidents. So again inappropriate use of speed. There should actually be a minimum speed limit on major routes (except when weather precludes otherwise). That way if you aren't prepared to travel at the speed of the route get off it.
Thank God tomorrow is Friday so I can look forward to another 3 hours on our motorway network.
And the sun is shining above cloud, and the sky is blue, and relax. Mission bubble on.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 3rd Feb 2005 at 14:15.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, the speed argument.
"Speed" does not kill - inappropriate or bad driving does. This may involve speeding as an element. The following table showing accident causes is taken from the DETRs own report into road safety.
Inattention: 25.8%
Failure to judge other person's path or speed: 22.6%
Looked but did not see: 19.7%
Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless: 18.4%
Failed to look: 16.3%
Lack of judgement of own path: 13.7%
Excessive speed: 12.5%
Furthermore, a large number of the excessive speed accidents are not caused by /illegal/ speeds. Avon & Somerset Police published some stats that showed just 30% of excessive speed accidents took place in excess of the speed limit, and 2% of excessive speed accidents involved a stolen vehicle. The 68% of remaining excessive speed accidents involved speeds inappropriate for the conditions.
"For every one mph reduction in speed accidents reduce by 5%."
This is utter hogwash, coming from a pair of TRL reports that used some very creative statistical methods and relying on some very big assumptions. A causal relationship was assumed, and no allowance was made for any knock on effects. In fact, if you look at the stats, you find that the safest roads in the UK are the fastest - the motorways. This is nothing more than god old fashioned "spin".
"Speed" does not kill - inappropriate or bad driving does. This may involve speeding as an element. The following table showing accident causes is taken from the DETRs own report into road safety.
Inattention: 25.8%
Failure to judge other person's path or speed: 22.6%
Looked but did not see: 19.7%
Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless: 18.4%
Failed to look: 16.3%
Lack of judgement of own path: 13.7%
Excessive speed: 12.5%
Furthermore, a large number of the excessive speed accidents are not caused by /illegal/ speeds. Avon & Somerset Police published some stats that showed just 30% of excessive speed accidents took place in excess of the speed limit, and 2% of excessive speed accidents involved a stolen vehicle. The 68% of remaining excessive speed accidents involved speeds inappropriate for the conditions.
"For every one mph reduction in speed accidents reduce by 5%."
This is utter hogwash, coming from a pair of TRL reports that used some very creative statistical methods and relying on some very big assumptions. A causal relationship was assumed, and no allowance was made for any knock on effects. In fact, if you look at the stats, you find that the safest roads in the UK are the fastest - the motorways. This is nothing more than god old fashioned "spin".
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
send clowns
You've omitted to consider the possibility of mechanical failure on your own vehicle, eg tyre blowout - in which case your speed will have a direct bearing on the time taken to come to a halt (and the number of lamp-posts, bridges etc. you have to avoid).
In the days of hub caps (and hidden wheel nuts, therefore) a friend took his newly serviced totty-trapper up to 100 on a quiet M-way. Slowed to 90, imagine his surprise when his O/S front wheel carried on at 100. He lived to be extracted from a mashed pile of scrap.
You've omitted to consider the possibility of mechanical failure on your own vehicle, eg tyre blowout - in which case your speed will have a direct bearing on the time taken to come to a halt (and the number of lamp-posts, bridges etc. you have to avoid).
In the days of hub caps (and hidden wheel nuts, therefore) a friend took his newly serviced totty-trapper up to 100 on a quiet M-way. Slowed to 90, imagine his surprise when his O/S front wheel carried on at 100. He lived to be extracted from a mashed pile of scrap.
No it doesn't. READ the report. On 12.5% of occasions excessive speed contributed to an accident. The report DOES NOT mention whether people were killed or not. So you cannot assume that in 12.5% of the accidents someone was killed!
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, Crossbow - in time-honoured fashion for your side of the debate, you read all you need into a misinterpretation of one statistic! Great, who need bother think that can assume, eh?
Try a statistic of 4%, if you read Web's whole article, although since that is by definition inappropriate speed in excess of the limit, even that is not really an argument in your favour. All crashes caused by excess speed suggest that the driver did not judge his or her speed well. Since your idea of speed judgement places far too much emphasis on the limit, you actually wish to reduce people's judgement!
airborne
All such mishaps are also both much less likely and much more survivable (either by not crashing or surviving the crash)with modern cars than Ford Anglias, yet the limit is the same. The argument stands: all risk can be eliminated by banning driving. Assuming we must drive, we balance risk and progress on our journey. The balance has shifted towards higher speeds, the law has not followed!
Try a statistic of 4%, if you read Web's whole article, although since that is by definition inappropriate speed in excess of the limit, even that is not really an argument in your favour. All crashes caused by excess speed suggest that the driver did not judge his or her speed well. Since your idea of speed judgement places far too much emphasis on the limit, you actually wish to reduce people's judgement!
airborne
All such mishaps are also both much less likely and much more survivable (either by not crashing or surviving the crash)with modern cars than Ford Anglias, yet the limit is the same. The argument stands: all risk can be eliminated by banning driving. Assuming we must drive, we balance risk and progress on our journey. The balance has shifted towards higher speeds, the law has not followed!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossbow, taking one single point from an argument and ignoring the others is the usual tactic from those who cannot argue the point in substantive terms.
"Speed kills" lacks any useful meaning and is dangerously misleading as I have demonstrated above.
"Speed kills" lacks any useful meaning and is dangerously misleading as I have demonstrated above.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Deep s**t
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'speed kills' mantra is basically trotted out because it's the only objective measurement that can be made. if there was a measurement for how good / bad a car, driver, road, junction, pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider, tyre, brakes, suspension, road surface etc. etc. without being subjective, then that would be used instead. Speed is an easy target because its measurable and has been demonised (sp?)by the sensationalist press.
Like smoking, there is no clear correlation between speed and death, there are approximately 27% of the population that have cancer resistant genes, hence the '70 year old on 40 woodies a day' and the '400bhp and no accidents in 30 years'. i'm not saying that good driving skills are genetic, although quick reactions and hand / eye coordiantion may be....
BTW, one reason given why women are cr@p at reversing is that they have no d1ck - lack of hand - eye coordination..work it out
Cheers,
10forcash
Like smoking, there is no clear correlation between speed and death, there are approximately 27% of the population that have cancer resistant genes, hence the '70 year old on 40 woodies a day' and the '400bhp and no accidents in 30 years'. i'm not saying that good driving skills are genetic, although quick reactions and hand / eye coordiantion may be....
BTW, one reason given why women are cr@p at reversing is that they have no d1ck - lack of hand - eye coordination..work it out
Cheers,
10forcash