Safe Speed Forums

When you have a motorway speed vehicle hitting a pedestrian the incidence of death is close to 100% as this impact will result in catastrophic destruction of the body leaving a trail of shredded bodily tissue and fluids over 100's of metres of the road surface; so much that the sex of the victim is usually recognisable from dental records only. Make no mistake, a motorway vehicle-pedestrian collision is an efficient method of suicide for the pedestrian. Oh! Don't forget the second, third, fourth and fifth impact. Not pretty.

Then again hit the pedestrian at 30 mph and it won't be so much mess and hey! Our pedestrian may survive without his or her insides being spread up the tarmac.

If you can still maintain speed doesn't kill then you should realise it does a pretty good impression of it in the fatal accident reports I have had the misfortune to have to read.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you arguing for a 30MPH limit on motorways?

Greenshed (is that your name for today?)

I really don't know why you quote in percentages when you clearly don't believe in them (but then do you really understand them , I am wondering?)

If you really had a basic understanding of maths, you would realise that the A/100mvkm figures are also a way of quoting percentages but these are called fractions (a bit of basic maths tuition for you for free)

Indeed, but it doesn't take away from the fact that 'exceeding the limit', with whatever factors that are associated with those collisions, is anything but underrepresented considering how many do so.


Is that in the same way as the SCPs have always misrepresented the figures of the effectiveness of their cameras - not accounting for long-term trends, RTTM and bias on selection? The difference is the misrepresentation from these well-paid professionals has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.


And how about the professionals like SCP PR staff, eh? Tell us, are/were you affiliated with SCPs (or their claims) in any way?
Don't lie, I can see your post data


So why don't the stats reflect this? Surely if exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor in say a fatal collision then it would have been borne out of the stats from the DfT summaries? It's not like the summary doesn't differentiate factors by the severity of collisions


This is the best measure of safety as it accounts for exposure. The simple fact is that the fastest roads have the fewest collisions for the number of vehicles that use them and the distance they travel. This means for any given user, choosing to make their journey on this fastest road will expose them the least risk of being a casualty for their journey. I would like to see a better definition of 'safest'. Isn't it odd how you didn't suggest an alternative measure!

By your logic, you might have well said that cyanide is safe because it kills so few people. Indeed I’ve read more reports of deaths by of water intoxication than from cyanide. Assuming for the sake of argument that all instances of cyanide and water poisoning are reported, can we claim that water is more dangerous than cyanide?


N=1 sample fallacy, as well as the example being cherry picked by you!


Where is this 'form'?


This applies to other factors too, even ones at least as prevalent in the stats (like 'failure to look properly', 'failure to judge other person's path or speed', 'careless, reckless or in a hurry'), so not so convenient now is it!

I could so easily claim that it is well known that failure to look (or any of the others)is under represented in collision and casualty statistics, but I don't make a habit of plucking dodgy facts from nowhere.

Then again hit the pedestrian at 30 mph and it won't be so much mess and hey! Our pedestrian may survive without his or her insides being spread up the tarmac.

If you can still maintain speed doesn't kill then you should realise it does a pretty good impression of it in the fatal accident reports I have had the misfortune to have to read.

I would prefer not to be hit at any speed than survive a 30 mph crash with a vehicle.

If I survive the impact of hitting a car, what about the impact of my head hitting the road or a curb stone?

What about the weeks of work while I recover?

There will doubtlessly be a graph some where that shows sped of impact a survivability. That graph will show a point at which the speed of impact means survival rates are low. I'll wager it is some where around 50 mph. If 2 people get killed on the road. One was hit at 50mph and the other at 90, is the one that was hit at 90 any deader?

Remember that guy that was jailed for doing 120mph on a Hayabusa with his son on the back? The papers reported that the judge said that if the came off it would have been certain death for his son. If he was doing 50 and fell off, the impact with the crash barrier posts would hardly be like hitting a freshly plumped pillow would it?

Please don't give reports of how you think it is a misfortune to read fatal accident reports. It is your job. My job involves dreadfull amounts of dust and has involved time in hospital. Deal with it.

I think we had the maths tuition some time ago and if I recall you admitted that mine was at least as sound as yours was after you had learned a thing or 2

for form read format the "form" should be obvious to you.

one figure that is interesting and that is the sheer number of road safety professionals you have allied to your little campaign here after all of these years campaigning...hardly teaming with them is it? Perhaps I'll send a few over to look at one of the campaign champion's comical appreciation of the road safety statistics and how they are gathered. What fun!

Speed [is not responsible for 5% of the fatal casualties it] is responsible for almost 50% of the fatal casualties and a similar figure for the serious casualties.

Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents, while travelling too fast for conditions was attributed to 6 per cent. For fatal accidents these ?gures are 7 per cent and 10 per cent respectively.

Is that the sum total of your response to my post to you? How pathetic!
You completely bypassed the issues of SCP misrepresentation of their figures, the under representation of 'exceeding the speed limit in the casualty stats, the best definition of safest, your own cherry picking (of an N=1 sample), how other prominent factors could also be under-reported, and last but not least, your own relationship with the SCPs.

Here's another demonstration of how you are talking utter trash and making up facts as you go along (possibly to try and bring these forums into disrepute - who knows):

How on earth can you reconcile that with:

Now, the key word here is "attributed", not 'caused', not by 'severity', but attributed; this is an unbrella term regardless of causation and severity.


Your "responsible for almost 50%" simply cannot tally with 7% who were regardless of it being a factor; hence your "50%" must actually be less than 7% (for cars anyway), and even less for non-fatals.
Do you need an expert to verify your own claims?

I would expect someone who regards themselves as an advanced driver or at least better than average to have this information at hand. Very poor I'm afraid.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069862
Stopping
270
You MUST NOT stop on the carriageway, hard shoulder, slip road, central reservation or verge except in an emergency, or when told to do so by the police, HA traffic officers in uniform, an emergency sign or by flashing red light signals. Do not stop on the hard shoulder to either make or receive mobile phone calls.
[Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5A, 7, 9, 10 & 16,MT(S)R regs 6(1), 8, 9 & 14, PRA 2002 sect 41 & sched 5(8), & RTA 1988 sects 35 & 163 as amended by TMA 2004, sect 6]
271
You MUST NOT pick up or set down anyone, or walk on a motorway, except in an emergency.
[Laws RTRA sect 17 & MT(E&W)R reg 15]


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069863

Breakdowns
274
If your vehicle breaks down, think first of all other road users and
• get your vehicle off the road if possible
• warn other traffic by using your hazard warning lights if your vehicle is causing an obstruction
• help other road users see you by wearing light-coloured or fluorescent clothing in daylight and reflective clothing at night or in poor visibility
• put a warning triangle on the road at least 45 metres (147 feet) behind your broken-down vehicle on the same side of the road, or use other permitted warning devices if you have them. Always take great care when placing or retrieving them, but never use them on motorways
• if possible, keep your sidelights on if it is dark or visibility is poor
• do not stand (or let anybody else stand) between your vehicle and oncoming traffic
• at night or in poor visibility do not stand where you will prevent other road users seeing your lights
Additional rules for the motorway
275
If your vehicle develops a problem, leave the motorway at the next exit or pull into a service area. If you cannot do so, you should
• pull on to the hard shoulder and stop as far to the left as possible, with your wheels turned to the left
• try to stop near an emergency telephone (situated at approximately one-mile intervals along the hard shoulder)
• leave the vehicle by the left-hand door and ensure your passengers do the same. You MUST leave any animals in the vehicle or, in an emergency, keep them under proper control on the verge. Never attempt to place a warning triangle on a motorway
• do not put yourself in danger by attempting even simple repairs
• ensure that passengers keep away from the carriageway and hard shoulder, and that children are kept under control

• walk to an emergency telephone on your side of the carriageway (follow the arrows on the posts at the back of the hard shoulder) – the telephone is free of charge and connects directly to the Highways Agency or the police. Use these in preference to a mobile phone (see Rule 283). Always face the traffic when you speak on the phone
• give full details to the Highways Agency or the police; also inform them if you are a vulnerable motorist such as disabled, older or travelling alone
• return and wait near your vehicle (well away from the carriageway and hard shoulder)
• if you feel at risk from another person, return to your vehicle by a left-hand door and lock all doors. Leave your vehicle again as soon as you feel this danger has passed
[Laws MT(E&W)R reg 14 & MT(S)R reg 12]
276
Before you rejoin the carriageway after a breakdown, build up speed on the hard shoulder and watch for a safe gap in the traffic. Be aware that other vehicles may be stationary on the hard shoulder.
277

If you cannot get your vehicle onto the hard shoulder
• do not attempt to place any warning device on the carriageway
• switch on your hazard warning lights
• leave your vehicle only when you can safely get clear of the carriageway
278
Disabled drivers. If you have a disability which prevents you from following the above advice you should
• stay in your vehicle
• switch on your hazard warning lights
• display a ‘Help’ pennant or, if you have a car or mobile telephone, contact the emergency services and be prepared to advise them of your location

You will definately have to find that little gem out for me, If I remember, you disappeared with tail firmly between legs.

So Greenshed, do you have a theory why 82% of the drivers in the survey, are willing to exceed a speed limit and do you admit to doing so yourself?

graball wrote:So Greenshed, do you have a theory why 82% of the drivers in the survey, are willing to exceed a speed limit and do you admit to doing so yourself?


A lot of them won't have the first idea how to recognise a speed limit if there is no sign in front of their nose to say what it is. Even when there is a sign most drivers don't read them.

That's the trouble with internet boards; you can't legislate for all interpretations.

Arguing for a 30 mph speed limit on a motorway would be stupid as would be the interpretation. The point made was in response to the denial that "speed kills" and in my opinion it does, hence my post.

Perhaps this report from TRL would help: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/re ... /rsrr9.pdf

Oh dear Oh dear! You are still confused at the difference between:
1. C......O......L......L......I......S......I......O......N......S (yes they are the same as accidents)

and

2. C......A......S......U......A......L......T......I......E......S

I have no interest in your amateur sound-bytes when you have no basic understanding of the subject. My ignoring the majority of your post is not pathetic it is a directed illustration of where you have gone wrong,

Oh dear Oh dear! You are still confused at the difference between:
1. C......O......L......L......I......S......I......O......N......S (yes they are the same as accidents)

and

2. C......A......S......U......A......L......T......I......E......S

I have no interest in your amateur sound-bytes when you have no basic understanding of the subject. My ignoring the majority of your post is not pathetic it is a directed illustration of where you have gone wrong, put that right and then have another go at reasoning how road safety can be improved by targeted use of speed enforcement and education in the use of speed limits along with reasonable driving methodology. Until you do that you are doing nothing more than repeating unsupported newspaper and web forum pap.

If what I said is such 'repeated pap' then why not just explain why and we can discuss it, this is a forum afterall and it should be really easy for you - otherwise why are you even posting here?

Why do you focus on those two yet miss the most significant one:
3. A......T......T......R......I......B......U......T......E......D


How can I put right something which you have claimed to be wrong but not explained? I think the reader can be forgiven if they conclude your non-response to the various points we raise is because there is only one way for you to answer them, which would be tantamount to admitting the Safe Speed campaign has a point and anyone associated with the SCPs would be seen in a very bad light - wouldn't they Greenshed

If what I said is such 'repeated pap' then why not just explain why and we can discuss it, this is a forum afterall and it should be really easy for you - otherwise why are you even posting here?
Your debating style of "You're wrong but I'm not telling you how" doesn't reflect very well on you.

Which is more dangerous: water or cyanide?

How would you respond for both possible answers yes and no?

What is "safe enough"?