Safe Speed Forums

Regardless, TRL 323 was an experiment in measuring causes of crashes, and in particular relies on the interpretation of the cause as recorded at the time, which may or may not have been correct.

When you're talking about serious injury and death yes.

Look, completely whack scenario, but it makes my point:

100 crashes, 80 are slight, no injuries, 20 involve a death and those 20 were the only ones that involved excessive speed.

now depending on how you quote those figures you can make it look like excessive speed is responsible for 20% of crashes, or 100% of fatal crashes.

I've yet to come across a single research paper linking speed and accidents which isn't full of holes large enough to drive a bus through.

Well here's a situation where clear over speed could have caused a very very nasty crash:

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=15414

Well quite, except as I say, only 12% of KSI accidents had excessive speed as a factor (and not the only one)

Excessive speed is reported to be an important contributory factor in many crashes. Analyses of a number of large data bases in the United States indicated that speeding or excessive speed contributed to around 12 per cent of all crashes reported to the police and to about one third of fatal crashes (Bowie and Walz, 1991). In Australia, excessive speed is an important factor in approximately 20 per cent of fatal crashes (Haworth and Rechnitzer, 1993) and speed is a probable or possible cause in 25 per cent of rural crashes (Armour and Cinquegrana, 1990). It has been argued that such figures are likely to under-estimate the role of speed in crashes because subtle effects, such as the amplification of other dangers in the traffic situation by relatively small increases in speed, are likely to be overlooked (Plowden and Hillman, 1984).

I don't see anything to suggest the speed was in excess of the limit.

Just because a study was not intended to show something does not mean that further meanings cannot be extracted from the data.

Not when the dataset was not intended for being used for that purpose.

I'm not suggesting the speed was above the limit.

Just that a higher speed is more risky, that's the topic on the table here.

Well here's a situation where clear over speed could have caused a very very nasty crash:

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=15414

I thought the topic was whether a speed camera would have saved that kid.

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/intro.html

whether travelling faster (in the same environment*) is more risky

It's moved on a bit to a discussion about whether travelling faster (in the same environment*) is more risky, that happens, perfectly acceptable.

*bored of saying that now, but you have to or somebody pops up trying to compare urban driving with motorway driving as proof that driving faster is not more risky.

Have you actually read that paper? I'm sure even you would notice the holes in it.

If you've got a paper that shows there is no relationship between higher speeds meaning higher incident rates (on the same given stretch of road under the same conditions)? I'm sure we could pick holes in that too.

It's moved on a bit to a discussion about whether travelling faster (in the same environment*) is more risky, that happens, perfectly acceptable.

*bored of saying that now, but you have to or somebody pops up trying to compare urban driving with motorway driving as proof that driving faster is not more risky.

Why aren't you so concerned about the factors that cause more accidents, like:

Failing to judge other persons path or speed 10.7%

Behaviour - careless/thoughtless/reckless 8.8%

Inattention 8.0%

Looked but did not see 7.5%

And as for your "bored of that" comment.... You're bored of it because it harks back to something we've been saying for years which is still true: build better roads and save lives.