Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 02, 2020 07:23

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 22:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Well, not exactly - we were not mentioned by name. But we were there in spirit when Clarkson presented the findings from our recent FoI:

PR562: 96% of rural road injury crashes do not involve speeding

And Richard Hammond said:

PR564: Graduated speeding penalties; two strikes and out; again

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 23:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
SafeSpeed wrote:
96% of rural road injury crashes do not involve speeding


Surely this just shows we need lower speed limits on country roads so that more people travel at a slower speed?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 23:30 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 00:45
Posts: 1016
Location: Mighty Tamworth
weepej wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
96% of rural road injury crashes do not involve speeding


Surely this just shows we need lower speed limits on country roads so that more people travel at a slower speed?



:bighand: Great Idea! So 96% crashes don't involve breaking the limit, lower it until they do :clap:


By the way of that 96% some may of occurred to a car going above the limit however that might not necessary be the reason the crash happened.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 23:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
ree.t wrote:
:bighand: Great Idea! So 96% crashes don't involve breaking the limit, lower it until they do :clap:



Er, no, if people drove more slowly there would be less crashes, and those that did occur would in all probablity be less serious.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 23:58 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
weepej wrote:
Er, no, if people drove more slowly there would be less crashes......

That's a bit of a leap of faith. Care to substantiate that?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 00:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
weepej wrote:
ree.t wrote:
:bighand: Great Idea! So 96% crashes don't involve breaking the limit, lower it until they do :clap:



Er, no, if people drove more slowly there would be less crashes, and those that did occur would in all probablity be less serious.


That's why motorways (the highest speed roads) are the safest?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 03:36 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
weepej wrote:
ree.t wrote:
:bighand: Great Idea! So 96% crashes don't involve breaking the limit, lower it until they do :clap:



Er, no, if people drove more slowly there would be less crashes, and those that did occur would in all probablity be less serious.


If you read the FOI response you will see that only 7% of accidents were "very likely" caused by "travelling too fast for the conditions", which means in a vast majority of cases the accidents happened when drivers were both within the speed limit and within the safe speed for the conditions.

The fact is we know the severity of accidents has very little to do with speed, you can ignore that fact if you like but you won't save any lives by doing so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 07:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
mmltonge wrote:
weepej wrote:
ree.t wrote:
:bighand: Great Idea! So 96% crashes don't involve breaking the limit, lower it until they do :clap:



Er, no, if people drove more slowly there would be less crashes, and those that did occur would in all probablity be less serious.


That's why motorways (the highest speed roads) are the safest?


Motoways are safer that country roads because there are very few junctions, no traffic crosses the path of cars, they are straight and the visibility is generally good so you CAN travel at speed on them.

The same does not apply to country roads.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 09:02 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 00:45
Posts: 1016
Location: Mighty Tamworth
Yes you can attribute all accidents to speed, because at least one car has to be moving to cause accidents. People crash into parked cars for instance however I really doubt the speed is the cause? If less than 10% of accidents you can be put down to quite simply going to fast, how is reducing people speed going to solve the other ~ 90%? Or is it okay for these accidents to happen as the cars are going too slow to cause any real damage. Cos it’s simple Fyzzix in’it?

Pehaps we should all drive in reverse, as cars need forward velocity to crash on these roads?

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 09:06 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
weepej wrote:
Motoways are safer that country roads because there are very few junctions, no traffic crosses the path of cars, they are straight and the visibility is generally good so you CAN travel at speed on them.

The same does not apply to country roads.

There are plenty of country roads which are straight and have few juctions crossing them where it is quite safe to travel at a higher speed. So there is no excuse or justification for a blanket speed reduction on rural roads.

Near us is a stretch of semi-rural road which is straight and wide with no junctions or crossings with no access to any properties, yet it has a 30mph limit. So with good reason, very few observe this speed limit, so an ideal oportunity for when the speed camera people get a bit short of cash, or are running behind on their quota.

weepej, you should read to data provided by the Department for Transport, which shows that exceeding the speed limit is a minor contribution to accidents, so perhaps you should think more about what really does cause accidents, which would be a bit more productive.
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 09:49 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
weepej wrote:
ree.t wrote:
:bighand: Great Idea! So 96% crashes don't involve breaking the limit, lower it until they do :clap:



Er, no, if people drove more slowly there would be less crashes, and those that did occur would in all probablity be less serious.


Ummmmm <4% less crashes, if 4% is all that are caused by speeding.

weepej wrote:
Motoways are safer that country roads because there are very few junctions, no traffic crosses the path of cars, they are straight and the visibility is generally good so you CAN travel at speed on them.


So what you're saying is that speed doesn't kill, it's junction behaviour and road engineering that does? Welcome aboard, weepej!




On an unrelated note, did anyone else nearly wet themselves laughing at the campervan racing on TG, because I did.


Last edited by Johnnytheboy on Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:13, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
weepej wrote:
mmltonge wrote:
weepej wrote:
ree.t wrote:
:bighand: Great Idea! So 96% crashes don't involve breaking the limit, lower it until they do :clap:



Er, no, if people drove more slowly there would be less crashes, and those that did occur would in all probablity be less serious.


That's why motorways (the highest speed roads) are the safest?


Motoways are safer that country roads because there are very few junctions, no traffic crosses the path of cars, they are straight and the visibility is generally good so you CAN travel at speed on them.

The same does not apply to country roads.


Motorways have higher vehicles speeds BECAUSE they have fewer hazards. Motorways have fewer crashes BECAUSE they have fewer hazards.

This simple pattern holds throughout the road network.

More hazards > slower traffic + more crashes
Fewer hazards > faster traffic + fewer crashes

So if we want safer roads, remove hazards and expect vehicle speeds to increase. So much for 'slower is safer'.

And don't forget no one really tells us how fast to drive on motorways. We observe the hazard environment and drive up to a suitable speed.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
weepej wrote:
mmltonge wrote:
weepej wrote:
ree.t wrote:
:bighand: Great Idea! So 96% crashes don't involve breaking the limit, lower it until they do :clap:



Er, no, if people drove more slowly there would be less crashes, and those that did occur would in all probablity be less serious.


That's why motorways (the highest speed roads) are the safest?


Motoways are safer that country roads because there are very few junctions, no traffic crosses the path of cars, they are straight and the visibility is generally good so you CAN travel at speed on them.

The same does not apply to country roads.


You can travel at 'speed' on any road
People are not dying because of speeding, don't TRY to make criminals out of them by lowering the speed limit. Your logic is messed up, your mind has been corrupted and you are unable to think clearly - please take a minute think long and hard about what you are saying, and if you still think that lowering a speed limit where people are not dying through use of excessive or illegal speed (often) then you are a lost cause


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:02 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
If you lower the speed limit - people start to trust the limit to be the safe speed. If you keep the speed limit anonymous to the safe speed (e.g. NSL 60mph) then people start to use their skills to assess the correct speed. very few get it wrong thats only because we do it frequently.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:47 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Lowering the speed limit will not do a single thing to improve the 4% of accidents caused by breaking it, because the speed limit is already irrelevant to their outcome! The remaining 3% of excess speed accidents may or may not be affected:

*The limit may not be lowered to at or below what would have been a safe speed.
*The drivers may only have been driving at an inappropriate speed within the limit because of poor speed selection, that would have applied equally had the limit been lower. Effectively they would have been at the same speed regardless, so lowering it would not have slowed them down, just made them criminals.
*The inappropriate speed for the conditions may have been caused by a different factor, inattention for example, thus not braking in time for a slippery corner, or pressonitis which would link to the point above.

DIY has also hit the nail on the head, in that rural NSLs are pretty much the only remaining stretches of SC where drivers need to exercise fully, and thus can build, their safe speed selection mechanism. This has all sorts of implications:

*Lower limits would further degrade this vital driving process.
*Rural road NSLs would expect to see more excess speed collisions, due to those inexperienced at safe speed selection.
*Removing this opportunity would mean that drivers were seldom in 'stretch' (see the 'Comfort-Stretch-Panic' model of learning) denying them experience gaining opportunity.

Finally, one would expect the logical mind, with a true interest in road safety, to say "Right, very few rural accidents are caused by speeding, so that's not a priority. How do we effectively address those causes that will save the most lives?" rather than massaging the situation to increase the proportional representation of speeding in the stats!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 14:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 17:37
Posts: 702
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
weepej wrote:
mmltonge wrote:
weepej wrote:
ree.t wrote:
:bighand: Great Idea! So 96% crashes don't involve breaking the limit, lower it until they do :clap:



Er, no, if people drove more slowly there would be less crashes, and those that did occur would in all probablity be less serious.


That's why motorways (the highest speed roads) are the safest?


Motoways are safer that country roads because there are very few junctions, no traffic crosses the path of cars, they are straight and the visibility is generally good so you CAN travel at speed on them.

The same does not apply to country roads.


Yes it does, in places.

Best wishes all,
Dave.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 03:35 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
Homer wrote:
weepej wrote:
ree.t wrote:
:bighand: Great Idea! So 96% crashes don't involve breaking the limit, lower it until they do :clap:



Er, no, if people drove more slowly there would be less crashes, and those that did occur would in all probablity be less serious.


If you read the FOI response you will see that only 7% of accidents were "very likely" caused by "travelling too fast for the conditions", which means in a vast majority of cases the accidents happened when drivers were both within the speed limit and within the safe speed for the conditions.



So, did you read it yet weepej? Or do you only reply to posts you think you have a smart answer for?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 22:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
SafeSpeed wrote:
So if we want safer roads, remove hazards and expect vehicle speeds to increase. So much for 'slower is safer'.


I don't know about you but I don't want all our country roads replaced with motorways.

Wanting this just so you can travel at 70-80 mph everywhere is just plain selfish IMO.

And on roads with hazards slower is patently safer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 22:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Homer wrote:
Which means in a vast majority of cases the accidents happened when drivers were both within the speed limit and within the safe speed for the conditions.



Obviously not!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 22:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
RobinXe wrote:
DIY has also hit the nail on the head, in that rural NSLs are pretty much the only remaining stretches of SC where drivers need to exercise fully, and thus can build, their safe speed selection mechanism.


Hmm, using the Darwin Effect to affect driving behaviour?

Wouldn't mind myself if other people weren't hurt so often.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.389s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]