Safe Speed Forums

How do you work that out?

Simple common sense. For a start, we'd lose all the crashes attributed to "Exceeding the speed limit" which account for 12-15% (can't remember the figures) of all fatal crashes.

That's 400+ lives saved, for a kick off.

I think that you're being somewhat optimistic, bearing in mind that the 12% of accidents so referred include those of "born-again bikers", "boy racers", stolen cars, pursuits, unlicensed drivers, etc etc - not a single one of whom is likely to take a blind bit of notice of speed limits anyway.

Off the top of my head, if all those who normally drove "somewhat" over the speed limit, ie "normal motorists", started to drive within the limit I reckon you'd be lucky to get a reduction of more than a dozen or so fatals.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

That'd be less than 4% actually. Substantially less when you chip away those accidents where the excess was not causal, but the driver was drunk, asleep, reckless, racing, etc.

EDIT: Also, that %age is of KSIs, not fatals alone, so your numbers, like your reasoning, are way out.

The highlighted part is rubbish; it’s actually a contributory factor and there’s more than 1 per fatal.

Besides, offset that against the distraction created by strict compliance.

If everyone complied the limits would simply be ratcheted down, again and again.........

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

I don't know where you get 4% from with KSIs, what document are you getting that from?

Page 7 of the following document:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221 ... oadacc1802

12% of all fatals had a contributory factor of exceeding the speed limit.

If you carry on and look at the Serious and Slight injuries the numbers go like this

Serious 1 in 14 exceeding the posted limit
Slight 1 in 20 exceeding the posted limit
All accidents 1 in 20 exceeding the posted limit

So strict compliance with the posted limit may reduce fatals by approx 1 in 10.

What do you suggest for the remaining 9?

Please seriously consider your answer. I am very interested in what you would do.

Edit:

Hint: I refer you to table 5 of your link.

It's not only the remaining nine, it's the hitherto-not-in-the-equation number who are now involved as a result of one or more of the myriad of extra distracts the strict compliance regime instils. Overall, I am absolutely convinced, deaths and, to a lesser (percentage) extent SIs go up with artificially low speed limits and rigorously enforced compliance.

I realise MP is suggesting a 20% tolerance and enforcement average. This, were it to be proposed in an otherwise camera-free era, may well be a very acceptable option. However, we are so camera-saturated, that I remain of the strong opinion that, until such times as we expunge their presence and move forward to an intelligent enforcement - and do so for sufficient time to repress the needle-driven mentality back into appropriate proportion, introduction of any automated camera enforcement of speed will prolong the agony.

That table just highlights and reinforces the neccessity for lower and more rigorously enforced speed limits

If you look at the following causal factors

Loss of control
Sudden braking
and to an extent, Careless, reckless or in a hurry

These (to me) are all massively influenced by driving too fast for the conditions / over the speed limit, particularly the first one. So it could be argued that reducing vehicle speeds will have a knock on effect of reducing accidents caused by the above three causal factors.

I disagree (but you'd expect me to). Please let me add a little background.

Certainly the faster one goes the more likely one is to lose control in otherwise identical conditions. However, it is in my experience that, in normal progress, unless there's a road condition at issue (ice, oil, wet leaves), the modern motor car is difficult to provoke out of control at any speed unless one is trying to do so. It is different if one has to try to avoid an accident with, eg, excessive steering and braking at the same time. Here an instability is likely to occur. I would far sooner that the instability be controlled by someone who has felt such an instability before rather than someone who has never "spun out" or had the tail out before.

Sudden braking can occur at any speed. With the exception of supercars, the braking g-force in cars from higher speed is typically less severe than at low speed in the same car. Remember, it is a time domain that matters in braking, not a distance one when it comes to dealing with the bloke braking in front. This is why it is important to follow at or in excess of 2-seconds, and longer in the wet.

I agree the highlighted section may be correct for your selected factors. However I note that speeding is not included in that list which are the most common causal factors reported.

If you look at the list as a whole you will see that they are not speed centric errors. They are driver standard errors. Just forcing a driver to go slower may not (probably will not) improve the driving standard.

You seem to want to try a quick fix. Comply with the speed limit. We have had this message given to us for the last 10 years or so. What has changed? Not a lot.

The causal numbers have not changed that much, even though we are driving slower. Initial reports on the 20 MPH zones seem to indicate worse crash severity than when they were 30's.

When lower limits with stricter enforcement seem to not change the overall numbers that much. I am forced to again ask. What would you do to improve the road safety in this country? Because the current medicine (speed cameras) is not working.

When asked about following distances on my CBT I replied.

"Only a fool break the 2 second rule". Adding that distance was impossible to gauge. Only time could give a reasonable separation distance, the faster you go the bigger the gap.

The instructor continued

"When it pours make it 4".