I knew it. It was so obvious: greenshed, our resident speed obsessed camera man, who I know has an easily provable
conflict of interest in this area, has responded with more misleading responses.
GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
...I might remind the reader that Sleep Related Crashes account for about 25% of all fatal motorway accidents, rising to about half of all crashes (A roads and motorways) during the small hours* - the time when the increased limit could be utilised. Reduced journey times results with less fatigue; reduced boredom results with less fatigue - a double whammy!
Significantly, fatals resulting from those Sleep factors are much more frequent than 'exceeding the limit', so how can anyone possibly claim that an increase of limit will result with more fatalities?
*(“Road Safety Research Report No. 52, Sleep-Related Crashes on Sections of Different Road Types in the UK (1995–2001)” )....
The report says this
"Overall, 17% of road traf?c crashes (RTCs) resulting in injury or death were sleep
related. Proportions varied between 3% and 30%, depending on the road type"
That is not at odds with the summary I gave, referring specifically to: firstly
motorways; secondly time of day.
Your point here, whatever you thought it was, is redundant.
GreenShed wrote:
It also says that crashes due to speed were 33% of the total, but let's ignore that eh?
Let's not ignore that what you are responding to was referring to 'exceeding the speed limit' - which does not account for anywhere near 33% of fatals.
GreenShed wrote:
Importantly what the report does not say is that sleep related crashes are reduced by increases in speed because of stimulation of the driver.
I didn't say or imply that it did.
I merely have a mechanism of how fatals could actually be reduced. It is logical that the factor of fatigue will be reduced - if traffic speeds really were to increase (as opposed to legalising current behaviours).
You can’t brush this one off so easily. The features of motorways make them the most prone to the effects of fatigue.
GreenShed wrote:
The speed as a systematic beneficial stimulant in driving situations is your own invention
IndeedGreenShed wrote:
... and appears to have no notable supporter.
The same could be said for
Bias On Selection (that topic you keep avoiding), yet your implied logic doesn't make my reasoning, or the significance of, any less valid.
GreenShed wrote:
The notion of enforcing a new 80mph speed limit at +10% + 2mph is not acceptable, IMHO, a 90mph speed limit, we all know the ACPO speed enforcement threshold sets the speed limit, should not be the result of the raising of the limit therefore I welcome the government saying that consideration will be made for strict enforcement. Perhaps 84mph will be the new limit.
Ah, spoken like a true speed camera beneficiary - odd that!
Can you remind us how much income the organisation you currently work for, receives from speed camera partnerships? Some of those subscriptions are really quite sizeable - huh?
So long as you get your pound of flesh, thanks to your desired hugely reduced tolerance thresholds ("84mph", a leeway of only 5%), you really are ambivalent, aren't you!
GreenShed wrote:
If there is a systematic rise in death and injury on the motorway after the rise in the limit I do hope those who sponsor it have the shoulders and guts to take the responsibility for any unwelcome outcome.
What about displacement, especially from other roads types that we all know (
except you) are less safe?
What about the systematic creation of the "fatality gap" (
another topic you really didn't like).
GreenShed wrote:
I predict the serious injury and deaths will increase at expected and well proven rates; why wouldn't it?
The confounding factors have already been explained.
By your logic, there surely can't be any Germans or Isle Of Man residents "left alive"!