Safe Speed Forums

Far more people exceed the speed limit these days than they used to. I remember reading a few years ago that 40% admit breaking the speeed limit, now it has doubled, do the authorities not realise that maybe THEY are getting it wrong? (AND KSI's are going down...does that make sense???

_________________
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.

You kinda missed the point there didn't you.
If the great majority routinely exceeds the limit, and doing so supposedly causes so much danger, why does it account for such a small portion of the contributory factors of the casualty stats? (5% even for fatals [2.5 factors per fatal])
Why are the fastest roads, which also happens to have the least compliance, the safest? (thanks TRL)


I don't disagree. So how did this issue come about? Ideally, speed limits should be a good thing (on most roads anyway), yet most feel it is OK to break them (wilfully or otherwise). This isn't right, but how did we end up here? Is it because the great majority of people feel that many limits are set inappropriately? (71% for motorways alone).

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

Because there's no pedestrains on them, no junctions where cars have to pull out at 90 degrees to the oncoming traffic or cross traffic coming the other way, and all the cars travel in the same direction seperated by industrial strength barriers.

However, badly driven cars on these roads are very very lethal.

As I understand it that 5% is crashes CAUSED by excessive speed, i.e. the driver loses control due to excessive speed and nothing else.

Have you got the figures that show had the participant been going at or below the limit the crash would not have happened?

All accidents are "driver error". 5% of these errors relate to the driver misjudging or driving at a speed which ist unsafe for the road conditions . making him fail in all COAST headings COAST ist directly link to speed in that it help control to safe speed for conditions. There are, as we know, the exceptions ... such as the poorly driver.. the sudden malfunction in a car.. the other road user who just run out without so much as a glance in any direction

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Weepej said,

So it's NOT speed that kills then but peds, junctions and oncoming traffic (misjudgment then)...if it was speed that kills then surely motorway speeds would be the most lethal BUT it's NOT speed is it, it's people doing stupid things which results in two things (or more) colliding?

_________________
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.

They are the most lethal though. Introduce a stopped car in one of the lanes or peds into a motorway and pretty much there's going to be some sort of crash.

You could say the same about railways too! So what's your point? If it's a campaign for lower speed limits because someone might introduce "peds or stopped cars", then you should also campaing for even lower limits on railway lines - (trains taking a lot longer to stop). In fact, you could completely paralyse our entire stransport system in the name of "safety"...

Yet somehow they end up being less lethal, unless bad drivers are underrepresented on motorways by something approaching an order of magnitude? ...

These roads also have great visibility and no sharp bends. So what you have seemingly accepted is that roads engineered to be safer indeed do result with fewer severe collisions, even with the higher limits, no formal tuition on these roads (!), and obvious risk homeostasis applied demonstrated by the greater lack of compliance?


You understand incorrectly. The speed is a contributory factor, i.e. it is (statistically) one of several factors that lead to the collision. Take away one of these other factors and the crash may not have happened (even if the excessive speed remains); consider driving under the influence which itself leads to poor hazard perception and/or evasion.
I don't doubt a few of this set are caused solely by exceeding the speed limit where doing so is dangerous (including joy riders and police chases), but you'll equally have to accept that the others aren't caused solely by this (like the drunk driver who nearly took me out who ripped out and dragged a lamppost a full 90m up the uphill 40mph road).


I've looked without success, I don't believe a document exists showing the number of KSIs/Ks where being in excess of the limit is the sole contributory factor to the collision. The figures must exist somewhere - don't you find the lack of such a breakdown rather telling?
It doesn't matter in the scheme of things; the portion of concern is still underrepresented regardless.
Do you agree that the contributory factor of 'exceeding the speed limit' is significantly underrepresented given that so many seemingly do it (and more than that by your own judgement) but so few collisions have this as any form of contributory factor?

I fear we've digressed. Getting back to the point of this thread:

Again – I don't disagree. So how did this issue come about? Ideally, speed limits should be a good thing (on most roads anyway), yet most feel it is OK to break them (wilfully or otherwise). This isn't right, but how did we end up here? Is it because the great majority of people feel that many limits are set inappropriately? (71% for motorways alone).

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

Why slow cars are prohibited und why some have been prosecuted for driving too SLOW on the motorways


Sometimes. But I've passed cars broken und down und stranded. It has not caused mega pile up crashes though. It can . but none of these forutnately did. Lot of cars crawl due to wave braking without incident each day too,

By the way there ist law preventing pedestrians walking und very clear insturctions in Highway Code as to what to do if broken down on motorway. Back home you are fined for not having hi viz in saloon of car ..

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

No, you are quite wrong and have completely misunderstood and misused the figures as Claire has done regularly.
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.

the 5% figure is for the COLLISIONS not the casualties.

Now have a deeper think about what you have just written. If 5% of the collisions have speed as a contributory factor and 50% of the deaths have speed as a contributory factor there are a lot of collisions that do not involve death and serious injury but 5% of collisions are resulting in 50% of the deaths.

Now stop your "cherry picking" and start admitting when you are misusing the figures.

The fastest roads are showing as safe because the HA and TRL choose to use the number of casualties/km driven; this is done because it suits their road engineering and performance needs. The problem with that method of performance, EuroRAP use it too, is that it does not indicate the number of dead or seriously injured in a location unless he traffic volume is known. It has the effect of making the roads "safe" because the traffic volume is high but there could be hundreds of people being killed or seriously injured on them. For instance one of the worst roads in the country according to EuroRAP has had only 1 KSI casualty on it in about 15 miles of road as I recall but is showing worse than roads nearby that have 10's of KSI casualties on them yet these roads do not feature as a dangerous road in EuroRAP; the locals however regard them as very dangerous indeed.
Organisations responsible for large arterial roads have a safety rating that is in people injured/miles driven; this unfortunately makes a road have an excellent performance rating but is responsible for many 10's of people killed because the number of drivers killed is diluted by the traffic.
This is of course another form of "cherry picking" and is therefore an irresponsible sound-byte when used by the amateur.

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

...and equally take away speed as a contributory factor leaving in the rest and the accident may not have happened.

Until recently the factors were not collected in a form that allowed the data to be analysed efficiently, it is now.
It is also acknowledged that it is difficult to establish the speed at which vehicles were being driven at the point of a collision because few surviving drivers or in-vehicle witnesses will admit the speed at which they were driving. Only fatal collisions will be examined in detail and an attempt made at establishing speed at the point control was lost and at impact. To establish this evidence has to remain at the scene; sometimes it does not remain.
One thing is certain and that is that speed is not recorded if it cannot be established hence it is well known that speed is under represented in collision and casualty statistics. Now isn't that convenient for you?

Introduce a stopped car on a motorway lane and drive another car into it at the speed limit and you will have a very high incidence of death and most likely a 100% incidence of serious injury.

Motorways have a 96-98% incidence of rear-end shut collisions, not at all difficult to predict because all traffic is (should) be travelling in the same direction. If all are in the same direction and travelling at high speed then the speed differential in the collision is low so unless one of the vehicles is caused to strike a stationary object after the initial collision collisions have a low incidence of serious injury when you look at the total number of collisions on a motorway or dual-carriageway.

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.

So Greenshed, do you ever exceed a speed limit or do you believe that all the authorities have gotten them all perfectly spot on?

_________________
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.

So if a road had only one car per day travelling on it but only had one accident a year that would be a pretty safe road by your standards would 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.

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.

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

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)

_________________
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'd be interested to know what degree of accuracy / confidence in the estimate of speed is required before it is recorded. Also, is there a mechanism for auditing these figures?