Safe Speed Forums

Your maths falls down at the basic schoolboy level. If someone who travels 10,000 miles per annum has 4 accidents in one year and someone who travels 50,000 miles has 5 accidents per year, who do you think is the bigger risk?

By your assumption it is the person with 5 accidents...wrong!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Ho ho. Why the last six, and not the last three. Oh, let's not go there...

I'll try and make it even clearer (at the risk of you changing tack and claiming I'm quoting selectively, if so, feel free to re-read the original posts, I just don't want to confuse you too much), as it seems that however much I distill your two quotes you still try and say that they mean the same thing:



...is not the same as saying...



So which do you believeviz a viz traffic engineers? I'm NOT asking whether you think the "community" (whatever that means) should be consulted, but whether you think limits should - ultimately - be set by traffic engineers.

I thought I recognized your inability to comprehend simple facts - you're Tom Bishop aren't you?

Trouble is, that 70mph is just an arbitrary number. It hasn't been scientificly calculated, it has just been plucked out of the ether.

We keep getting figures like 3000 people die on the roads in the UK each year, and in isolation it sounds bad. But when you start comparing it to heart disease and diabetes, it is nothing. Pretty bad for the friends and families of those that do get killed, but it is just background noise compared with the total journeys and miles travelled.

If you are interested in saving lives, what is the road safety budget and how many lives do you think you have saved? Would the same amount of money save more lives elsewhere? Is the reducing of speed limits giving the best return on the money invested?

Aye! That's a very good point! If Greenshed is arguing (and I can see, if not entirely agree with, his argument!) that the absolute number of KSI is more important that the number per unit volume of traffic, then there are MUCH richer pickings to be had in a great many fields other than road traffic!

I don't have any but I have seen many that have the data I say. You can't say none exist because you haven't seen any. Well you can because you have but you should be aware that plenty exist that are outside of your experience.

I didn't say they (A/mvkm) are completely worthless; I said they are worthless as far as casualty reduction is concerned. They may well be used to set some speed limits but are not the utopian authority for all application of casualty reduction or collision reduction. In fact for collision reduction they are of little value. They are primarily used for indication of performance of the network and for misquoting by those with your mindset and understanding.

Congratulations, you have just shown you have absolutely no understanding of anything I have said.

As far as maths is concerned you don't even want to be going there.

Just to show that I am a man of my word and I CAN actually prove my point , I, very easily found a couple of exaamples from Chesire Council. Please feel free to find mean speeds ABOVE the limit, let alone the crazy 10-15MPH above that you INSIST occur.

p.s , I don't have to worry about my maths, maybe you should.

ttp://www.cheshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/

1A8D24D2-AF5C-451F-BC77-7B4133807ADD/0/EastCheshireARoadsA523toA6SMAF.pdf

http://www.cheshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres ... A6SMAF.pdf
Maybe, you could just as easily find one to support your crazy theory? I somehow doubt it!!!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

There may well be but it doesn't mean that the effort should be discontinued.

There is a subtle difference in the use of the A/mvkm and KSI volume even when the difference between the 2 figures is anything but subtle.

It took a long while to convince the traffic engineers to conceive the difference; maybe that was because they had to admit that roads they said didn't need treatment really did but the benefit of the 2 measurements was seen as were the applications of each.

With road safety, what seems obvious and common sense to the lay person is often not in practice, Maybe that is why it is a contentious subject; everyone that drives considers themselves having an expert view; it isn't until you become involved in it full time that you quickly realise how little you know is of use.

To be honest I am having difficulty understanding any point you are making, mainly because a) you don't appear to have a point, other than the fact that you think everyone except you is wrong. b) your logical process is deeply flawed.


No I do, give me an idea so that I can test you, I don't want to set the bar too high for you.

The second document page 19 line 31:
300m east of junction with
Brooks Lane to Congleton
Boundary, 135m east of
roundabout with B5309
Limit 30 mph Mean Speed 35 mph
I didn't look far.
You only asked for one do you want me to scan the rest?

If you are involved in road safety full time, that explains why this country is in such a sorry state,,,,say no more.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Of course he isn't, the road system may be a total mess, but it has nothing to do with our friend here, and he has nothing to do with the road system or analyzing data related to it.

if you are involved in it full time, that suggests a vested interest. No speed cameras, no job. You keep on with the speed kills propaganda and the mortgage keeps ticking away, while most of the people on here are doing it for nothing, and some of us have paid to be here.

Personally I think people should eat more chips

Ok ,so you've found one on a very small stretch of road (0.6km). That could be a misprint , the A/100mvkm is low and no measures were neede to maintain a 30MPH limit, so most likely a misprint....the vast amount of others don't exactly support your theory though do they?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I'm more interested in these NSL roads that you insist have means of 70MPH plus.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I found 14 lines in the second document you linked to that had average speeds above the speed limit. Perhaps you don't need anything further from me to convince you now.

Well, that's your mind made up then! I'm afraid the "...because we've always done it that way..." argument is one of the most pathetic I've ever heard! I hope you'll permit me a wry chuckle when I think of the number of other government statistics that get new methods of assessment on a regular basis! Of course, they all seem to be in areas where the new method makes things look BETTER. If you actually took that approach with this particular field, that wouldn't be the case. I expect it's just a coincidence though... As for "evidence", well, getting back to our graphs, I've still never heard a satisfactory explanation of why the "Ks" don't mirror the "SIs". Now of course, I can't PROOVE that the figures for SIs are erroneous, but that's certianly one possible explanation!



OK, thanks, I thought that's what you were going to say. As you might expect, it's not that simple in real life. Those aren't the only variables. The bulk of the work in recent years has been on decelerating the occupants progresively within the vehicle - airbags, pretensioners, peak load limiters & so on. You have only to look at the secondary safety performance of the large cars of yesteryear and the small cars of today to see that it goes a lot further than your analysis suggests. It's not that you're "wrong" as such, just that there's more to it than making cars bigger to decelerate people more slowly - that's just ONE of the ways. it's certainly not the only way. There's actually quite a lot still to be done (and, indeed, being done) on the inside of the car.


OK, I can understand the thinking behind this strategy. I think it's wrong, mind, but I can understand it!
HOWEVER...
Firstly, if automated speed enforcement was any good at it's job, you could enforce whatever limit you liked! 60 in a 60 limit, 30 in a 30...and so on. We keep getting told how wonderfully accurate these devices are, so it shouldn't be a problem!

Secondly, if you DO choose this bizarre, convoluted way of enforcing a 60 limit (by reducing it to 50 ), I still wouldn't have a problem with it (well, not a huge one anyway!), but the camera partnerships DON'T, do they?! Certainly if a limit is 50, Our local scamera partnership start raking in the dosh at 57! In fact, I wouldn't have thought there were many around the country that would let you get away with 60 in a 50! (which, according to you, should still be a 60 anyway, but then changed to a 50 to stop people doing more than 60...)

Then of course, you've got the REAL pi55 takers- the one's who will nick a car and get well into 3 figures past Wigton (or anywhere for that matter)! Now they're not exaclty going to be that bothered if someone takes a picture of the car they've just nicked are they?

So, just to recap, we have a 60 limit which a fair percentage abide by. Some exceed by a moderate margin, and some absolutely flagrantly disregard. (Or as you put it, "take the pi55").

To combat this, we lower the limit to 50 in the hope that more people will do no more than 60, but we start fining them at 57 anyway. (Presumably just in case they might be tempted to think of exceeding 60)?!

And then we have the real "pi55takers" who wouldn't have done 60 even when it was a 60. They have done "as-fast-as-it-will-go" in a 60 and for some reason, we now think they're going to do "as-fast-as-it-will-go - less 10MPH" now that it's a 50 limit???

Sorry, but I think if anyone's taking the pi55 round here, it's the scamera partnerships!

Of course, but it should be prioritised and scaled proportionately. Furthermore, if a method is based upon known untruths and/or depiction then that is reason to discontinue it - or at the very least hold certain people accountable for these untruths (surely you must agree with this latter part).


Care to explain that difference?


You completely miss the point. the motorways already have a lower A/mvkm figure than other road types, like A roads - even though they are the fastest roads; therefore it cannot simply follow that faster must mean more dangerous.
Further to that, you are again making your N=1 error - you are comparing 1 road of 1 road type to an entire group of another road type; in terms of sample sets you are comparing apples and oranges.

Your logic can easily be reversed by saying the same for 1 particular motorway against all A roads in general - your point is logically redundant.


A value can exist even if you can't see it.
This is of great value: it enables a 'pull' method of displacement of traffic from more dangerous roads without resulting with more unpredictable behaviours (meaning safer overall); more significantly, it also shows that engineering is a far more valuable tool to road safety than focussing on speed (the fastest roads are the safest, so if speed is so dangerous what are we doing so right on these fastest roads?)


No it's not; you are misrepresenting what has been said. Faster isn't necessarily safer - although it can be; faster need not be more dangerous just as slower isn't necessarily safer (as I have already shown).

Can you link to the campaign pages where it is stated that "faster is safer" (in that context: i.e. faster is inherently safer)?
If you can't then you need to revise or retract that statement.

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