Safe Speed Forums

Twisting words again

What you are proposing ( cutting speed limits ) is likely to precipitate a far higher number of permanent vegetables due to brain injury. not reduce accident rates that much because the latest data shows that only 3% of accident are caused by exceeding the speed limit at what it is now, or less if you count what it has been in the past.

The issue at hand when that comment was made was speed in excess of the limit, that is the definition of speeding,

It is not the definition in the TRL report, nor is it mine, as I've made abundantly clear a number of times. You've either failed to notice this or you are deliberately misrepresenting, which is it?

In fact the linked report was explicit about this:

driving too fast for the conditions is more likely to be a factor in accidents than exceeding the speed limit.

http://www.trl.co.uk/store/report_detai ... 99&pid=211

You lied. Please stop it.

Your posts are insanely deranged, dishonest and extremely unpleasant.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Angela Smith, MP said:

"Over the last 10 years, 358 people were killed and a further 3,471 were seriously injured because of speed. That means that speed kills or seriously injures I person every single day on our roads.

Excessive or appropriate speed is the single biggest cause of death and serious injury on our roads – 27% of all deaths and 22% of all killed and seriously injured are due to speed.

During the last five years, 27% of fatalities were due to speed compared with 20% for the previous five years.

More than three quarters of all deaths and serious injuries due to speed occur on rural roads.

17–24 year old males are responsible for 8 out of 10 speed related fatal crashes.

The faster drivers choose to travel, the more likely they are to be involved in a collision. A 10% increase in average speed would be expected to result in a 30% increase in the frequency of fatal and serious crashes. A 1mph reduction in average speed can be expected to cut collision frequency by 5 per cent.

More than 7 out of 10 people believe the current speed limits on all roads are about right.


http://archive.nics.gov.uk/env/030623a-env.htm

So you're saying exceeding the speed limit (which I and many others here would argue is not inherently unsafe) is less dangerous than driving too fast for the conditions (which is not something anyone here is condoning), if you define 'dangerous' as 'more likely to be a factor in accidents'?

Isn't that obvious?

Does that mean we agree on something?

And there was me thinking you were some kind of crazy person...

Warwickshire County Council are cutting many rural speed limits on the strength of a DfT Circular 1/2006.

IF the government allow local authorities to cut speed limits to 40Mph, transport in rural areas will be put back to 1930s standards. Pre 1974 local councils spent an absolute fortune improving and widening many miles of road between rural communities to make them safe for the then national limit of 70 Mph. If cuts in speed limits go through, the investment of our far sighted forefathers will be completely wasted. Cutting speed limits will also increase fuel consumption for rural drivers. It would appear that today's politicians have had their brains washed by well organized anti speed campaigners and greens, who's main aim appears to be to bring back the Red Flag Act and turn the UK into a third world country when it comes to transport. If road safety campaigners were serious about actually reducing accidents they would all propose annual eyesight tests. However, as they get most of their funding from the transport industry it would appear that they would prefer more accidents at lower speeds.

I expect that most rural accidents are caused by tourists going relatively slow watching the scenery not the road ahead. Reducing rural speed limits to 40 Mph will not cut accidents as most rural accidents occur in locations where the safe speed may be as low as 30 or even less than 20 Mph. Cutting the current allowed maximum of 60 Mph will actually encourage some drivers to go faster where road conditions do not allow higher speed.

Many rural road accidents are caused by drivers foolishly swerving to avoid small animals like rabbits and pheasants. Killing something like a sheep is surely preferable to risking you life, running over things like rabbits and pheasants wont even damage your vehicle. Similarly parking in potentially dangerous locations like in blind bends and over the brow of a hill can be easily avoided. Pedestrians should not always follow the highway code to the letter, crossing over to the side of the bend where you can easily be seen from a reasonable distance is advisable

Keeping rural speed limits at the current 60Mph is more important now the prospect of spy in the sky satellite tracking and road pricing looms on the horizon. It would appear that there are plans to put lower limits on every road except the more expensive trunk roads. This will restrict choice to avoid the routes with the highest rates and still get to your destination in a reasonable time. It could be said that rural speed limits are almost impractical or impossible to police, but with spy in the sky tracking, they can get you anywhere between two fixed points. Any average driver is faced with the prospect of becoming a criminal he is skilful enough to complete his rural journey at an average over 40Mph. I seem to remember of something in New Labour's "clause 4 " about allowing people to attain their full potential, not much sign of it in policy when it comes to driving.

It is pretty obvious that those leading the call for lower rural speed limits are almost exclusively townies who are probably not good drivers themselves. This country is being wrecked by narrow minded people who because they can't do something safely themselves think that nobody else is capable of doing it either. Like the Foxhunting Ban, policy is all about trying to destroy the rural economy so that ten bob fat cat city dwellers can " Escape to the Country " and take the homes currently occupied by indigenous rural people. Like the road fuel tax escalator, its all part of a general trend for ethnic cleansing by stealth. Rural Post Office closures are also likely to be considered if the legal time taken for collections / delivery significantly increases.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. I do not lie, you have, the proof is in black and white.

You can wriggle all you want, but at the time the statement was made, the issue being discussed was speed in excess of the limit, and you know this full-well. You can twist and turn, and claim semantics, but the fact of the matter is, exceeding the speed limit is not more dangerous than drink driving.

Speaking of snake-like tendencies, I think you missed this point, I'll make it even bigger for you this time:

Drink driving is responsible for more deaths than drivers exceeding the limit, and yet far more drivers exceed the limit than drink drive, therefore drink driving is far more dangerous than speeding, and reducing it should receive more resources accordingly. Please concur or rebut this.

Incidentally, speed is a factor in all collisions, even those involving only cycles, or only pedestrians, by virtue of the fact that at least one thing must be moving. I am sure we can agree that there is a difference between speed being a factor in this manner, and speed being a causal factor. The figures quoted to not distinguish causal factors.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

So you're saying exceeding the speed limit (which I and many others here would argue is not inherently unsafe) is less dangerous than driving too fast for the conditions

Remember what I said about posts that begin: "So, you're saying..." invariably turn out to be a wild misrepresentation?

I'm saying nothing of the kind. The definition of speeding that both TRL and I rely on is both speeding over the limit and driving too fast for the conditions. As I've said, endlessly, speed limits are predicated on ideal conditions. 30 mph in a 30mph zone in freezing fog is too fast. Speeding above the limit is, by definition, too fast for the conditions, that' why the gradated speeding fines are being introduced so speeds wildly in excess of the posted limit would incur greater fines than a few mph over the limit.

If people here claim driving above the limit is not dangerous then they are ignoring my other oft-repeated explanation that a death doesn't have to occur for speeding to still be aggressive, anti-social, threatening behaviour.

I illustrated with the Reading University Survey that showed speeding ranked as the number one anti-social behaviour that had a measurably negative impact on peoples' lives.

The only response to this fact was that all the people who complained must have been brainwashed.

Is that your contention?

Herein is another lie. It was contended that without the questions and choice of answers it is impossible to gauge the relevance of this survey.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

at the time the statement was made, the issue being discussed was speed in excess of the limit

Not by me, and not according to the 27% figure quoted. Both me and the TRL have made this clear. You haven't read what I've written properly, nor did you read the TRL link.

How do you know fewer people drink drive than speed? Not all drink drivers are detected. Can you give a breakdown of resources allocated to speeding versus drink driving? Your question is predicated on so many assumptions it makes no sense.

Can you show me where I lied please?

Fourth time.

I have, look up the thread, you can tell which posts they are, because they are the ones with a quote by you, and then me saying that you have lied. Its not hard.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

There is no doubt in my mind that a significant driving factor behind their wailing is the fact that the official line has them brainwashed that "fast" is automatically dangerous.

And the author of that spectacular exercise in evasion?

RobinXe on Wed Dec 31, 2008 14:05

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19269&p=190321&hilit=brainwashed#p190321


You're not very good at this, don't you remember what you posted, let alone what I've posted?

I'm just fine thank you, I have never denied saying that, or believing that, but you claimed that it was the only response, which it was not, and thus you lied. See?

Furthermore my comments were in relation to residents wanting lower limits in their area, not the survey in question. Stop being deceitful.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I draw your attention to http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=489 which clearly makes a case for cycle helmets saving lives.

Why do you think a safety initiative that could save lives should not be implemented?

If there are more cyclists on the roads then the number of accidents they have that do not involve motor vehicles must also increase, without helmets the number of injuries must also increase.



The sorts of speeds cycles attain during cyclist only accidents you mean?

Please explain how you think one safety measure you believe will save lives is good when another is not.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Incidentally Oliver, if you think anyone hasn't noticed the fact that you are latching onto trivial points over which you can nit-pick and debate semantics, whilst avoiding the larger, more pertinent points, then you are sorely mistaken.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

BRAKE is supported by safespeed? That would be the same BRAKE that a safespeed petition tried to get charity status removed from, mmm?

Please explain how you think one safety measure you believe will save lives is good when another is not.

I just did. Compulsion lowers cycling rates, hence making the roads more dangerous.

Please show proof that lowering cycling rates makes roads more dangerous.

You are aware I'm sure that the studies previously quoted show nothing of the kind, nor even suggest it.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I have never denied saying that, or believing that,

What's your evidence that brainwashing took place please?

Who said the questions posed may make the survey worthless? You certainly did not, your only response, based on precisely zero evidence, was that the respondents were brainwashed.


Here it is:


"In comparison to concerns such as intimidation, vandalism, harassment, disruptive neighbours, drunkenness and drugs, speeding is the number one concern."

Malcolm Collis, head of the Specialist Units, Thames Valley Police Roads Policing Department, said: "This justifies our tough stance on enforcing the speed limits on the roads in the Thames Valley. The driving force behind this is our determination to reduce the numbers of people who are killed or seriously injured on our roads. We will continue to carry out speed enforcement and promote our driver improvement diversion scheme, to help people through education stay safe on our roads."

Respondents also reported strong support for enforcement, with 80% of respondents agreeing that speed enforcement was acceptable practice on 30mph residential roads. This is in line with previous evidence that the public accept the practice of speed enforcement.

The survey examined a wide range of issues (16 in total) including intimidation, damage to property and vehicles, noisy neighbours, drugs, drunkenness, and litter.

Dr Stephen Ladyman MP, Minister for Transport, said: "This research firmly demonstrates the considerable level of concern about speeding traffic in local communities. We remain committed to reducing speeding and the misery it can cause through a variety of means including engineering, education and enforcement."

Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes, Head of the Association of Chief Police Officers Uniformed Operations Business Area welcomed the study, saying, "For too long we have allowed the so called voices of the motorist to dominate the debate.

"This important research clearly shows that the wider public strongly support speed enforcement and are concerned not only about reducing casualties, but clearly see excessive speed as anti social. This information should inform policy at every level, and police and local authority priorities should be re-examined in the light of this information".

Robert Gifford, executive director for PACTS, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said: "I welcome the publication of this research. It strongly supports both police and government action to reduce excess speeding and save lives on our roads. It is good to know that once again public opinion backs tough action."

Kevin Clinton, RoSPA Head of Road Safety said "The public are right to be concerned about speeding drivers. Even in good conditions the difference in stopping distance between 30 and 35mph is an extra 21ft - more than two car lengths. Small
amounts above the speed limit can turn a near miss into a child being knocked down."

Jools Townsend, head of education at road safety charity Brake, said: "It comes as no surprise that the public are extremely concerned about speeding. Breaking the speed limit or going too fast for conditions is a contributory factor in 26% of fatal crashes, so the public have every reason to be worried about this issue. We urge the Government to listen to the public, and provide police with the resources they need to properly enforce our speed limits. We are also calling for the urban speed limit to be reduced to 20mph, to help prevent the tragic deaths and injuries of countless children and other vulnerable road users on residential roads."

The paper is published in the journal Accident, Analysis and Prevention.

Ends

Notes for editors:

Lucy Ferguson, Senior Press Officer, Reading University 0118 378 7388 L.Ferguson@reading.ac.uk

Annie Tysom, PR Officer, Thames Valley Police 01865 846350 annie.tysom@thamesvalley.pnn.police.uk


Professor Frank McKenna
Tel: +44 (0)118 378 8530
Email: f.p.mckenna@rdg.ac.uk

Dr. Damian Poulter
Tel: +44 (0)118 378 6798
Email: d.r.poulter@rdg.ac.uk



This study was based on the British Crime Survey 2003-2004. The BCS is a face-to-face survey of householders aged 16 and over, and living in private households in England and Wales, conducted in their own homes by an interviewer, on a variety of topics relating to their experience of, and attitudes towards, crime.

The full title of this paper is: "Is speeding a 'real' anti-social behaviour? A comparison with other antisocial behaviours, Accid. Anal. Prev. (2006)," by Dr Damian Poulter and Professor Frank McKenna.

Please show proof that lowering cycling rates makes roads more dangerous.


I already have, twice, with links and sources.

Chapman ibid:

We now have a number of whole populations where helmet compulsion has been applied. And once you take into account the drop in cycling which the helmet law caused, not one of these shows any significant reduction in cyclist head injury rates. Minister for Transport David Jamieson acknowledged that the Government knows of no case where cyclist safety has improved with increasing helmet use.

How can this be? The short answer is that we don't know. Helmet campaigners are now starting to say it's because people are wearing them wrong, as well over nine out of ten helmets are incorrectly worn. This is hardly surprising: most helmets (a) don't fit very well, and (b) when worn correctly (i.e. minimal movement) are distinctly uncomfortable, especially in hot weather (I didn't really believe this until I started riding more without a helmet).

But this doesn't really wash. There are a lot of time series covering a lot of countries, and in every case injury rates have remained static or (quite often) risen as helmet use has risen; when there are large step changes in helmet use there are no corresponding changes in head injury rates, particularly when compared to pedestrians (a handy control which removes the effects of, for example, better traffic enforcement).

To add further confusion, there are all the possible confounding variables. For example: it seems logical to suppose that those most likely to be deterred by scaremongering and inconvenience are those who are least committed to, and least experienced in, cycling; by implication, those most likely to crash. So one would expect the injury figures to fall by much more than the drop in cycling. This has not happened. And there are some logical pitfalls to avoid, too. In the USA, the injury rate has increased by 40% while helmet use has risen to nearly 50%, suggesting that helmets are actually causing increased casualties - but the causal relationship could just as easily be reversed, with increased helmet use being a response to increased risk.

All in all I would say that the evidence in favour of helmets is equivocal. There are many other things which seem to me to be much more likely to result in genuine improvements in cyclist safety, but all these are lost behind the fog of statistics and fearmongering thrown up by the helmet promoters. It is surely significant that the leading helmet promoter in the UK is overweight and admits to not being a regular cyclist; not one single cycling body in the UK was prepared to back a recent Bill compelling helmet use by children, and that includes the trade body whose members profit from selling them. For myself, sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes I don't. I encourage my children to wear them and tell them what sort of injuries the helmet might prevent. Most important, I tell them that the helmet is not a magic talisman: if you want to live it's your own skill and vigilance which will save your life, not a piece of polystyrene.

So, why am I campaigner against helmet compulsion? Because I firmly believe that far from being the first, best thing a cyclist can do to increase safety, helmets are essentially irrelevant in preventing serious and fatal injuries. Efforts to promote and compel helmet use have failed to deliver measurable benefit wherever they have been tried, and they are a dangerous distraction from the real business of cyclist safety. By scaring people off their bikes they make my daily travel more dangerous.

Irrelevant. This is evidence published by an organisation other than Safespeed as you have frequently requested in other posts to cover other items.

Is this evidence that cycle helmets save lives unacceptable?



Is a report by the BMA unacceptable to you?

Please explain how you think one safety measure you believe will save lives is good when another is not.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May