Safe Speed Forums

If I were to have a theory based on this it would be something like this;

For every 5MPH above each INDIVIDUAL driver's comfortable (safe) speed limit, for that given stretch of road, I would expect the the accident chance to probably increase sufficiently (not sure if DOUBLE) would be correct though!

_________________
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.

Interesting. But how does it work? Can you flesh it out a bit?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Plenty to digest here, including references and links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness

Especially this: "The Isle of Man has no speed limit on many rural roads; .... Measured travel speeds on the island are relatively low." That certainly bears out my experience and rather gives the lie to your contention that, in the absence of speed limits motorists would travel at high speeds. Though you don't need to go to the IoM to realise that - there are many thousand miles of narrow, twisty, badly surface rural NSL roads in this country where you would be surprised to see any one doing , let alone

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Well every driver would have a comfortable speed (limit)that he/she feels safe to travel on any given road at any given time. say for instance, a fairly clear motorway in low density traffic. If that driver was then to increase that "comfort" speed by say 5MPH increments, as they do so, they would feel less confident, either because of the car they were in, the road conditions or weather at the time or maybe just their own skill levels and reaction times.
Obviously as the speed increases the likely hood of them failing to observe or react to a hazard, whether that being a car braking suddenly in front of them or the lane changes of every other car around them would also increase (and hence the chance of having an accident) BUT I would say that this would have little to do with exceding a speed limit because a driver with say only one or two hours motorway exoerience, would find that their comfort speed may only be 50MPH (or less) and so by driving at 70MPH (still within the speed limit), they are increasing their chances of an accident far more than say someone who had a years motorway driving experience who would in turn probably have a far lower comfort speed than someone who drives on motorways daily for several years.

It's a bit like racing drivers. professional racing drivers would think nothing of racing round a track with other experienced racing drivers at speeds in excess of 100 MPH but someone with no racing experience would find that their comfort speed would be far less than 100MPH and for every 5MPH above their comfort zone that they travel, the likelyhood of them spinning out of control or colliding with another driver would go up proportionally to their speed above their comfort speed , whereas they could probaly travel round at their comfort speed for hours, without mishap (providing that other drivers didn't collide with them).

it's similar for rally drivers. The professionals can charge through the same forests far faster than club rally enthusiasts could, (even given the same cars) because the comfort speed of the pro rally driver would be higher than the amatuer and for every 5MPH closer to the pro's speed that the amatuer tried to get, the more likely to spin off.

_________________
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.

But if you put those experienced racing drivers on the same track as other drivers out for their first track day, they would reduce their speed considerably. And that is what the real world of roads is like - a mix ranging from total novices to very experienced drivers.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Well I can aggree with that but it has nothing to do with the claim that, for every 5KPH above a speed limit that you travel, that your likelihood of an accident doubles, does 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.

None at all. That claim can only be examined in conjunction with knowing how the speed limit was set. If the speed limit was set at a very high level - say the 99.9percentile, - then it might well be true. Similarly "doubling the risk" sounds very dramatic but if the risk id very low to start with then doubling will be of little consequence.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I suspect the IoM is quite a different environment, people less likely to be in a hurry, no congestion to impede them (and hence less likely to stamp on the gas), no major roads.



I spend a fair amount of time cycling (and driving) on twisty country roads, and sure many people slow down so they don't lose adhesion on the corner/make life uncomfortable for themselves, but many still travel too fast, a smaller percentage way too fast, and it only takes one to ruin your day.

Different from what, specifically?

Thanks for the support Steve, had a busy day yesterday, I visited the Brighton Speed trials to watch some interesting vehicles hit multiples of the normal speed limit for Madeira Drive without crashing. To expand on your replies to Weepej my reply was aimed at this part of Pete's post and his point about speed limits being a strict limit.



So you see Weepej what I meant was that requirements for strict adherence to limits has nothing to do with safety, not that speed limits have no relation to safety. They do, however it is quite a loose one.

_________________
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

Now " id" would that be a misspell for "IS", OR a Dramatical mistake for "I'd "--
Old biblical saying -something about motes in eyes - modern day saying is about green houses. I'd suggest you start in house .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

The cycling posts were a completely different topic, so I've split them off into this thread.

Topographically, the IOM is very similar to Cumbria and South West Scotland. I think the suppositions that people aren't in a hurry and that there's less congestion so people won't stamp on the gas ought to be treated with great suspicion! From my own observations of Cumbria, I could just as easily say completely the opposite! (i.e. BECAUSE there's little congestion people are free to stamp on the gas)! Ithink the only conclusion that can be draw is that most people, most of the time, select a speed that they feel appropriate and safe - REGARDLESS of the limit. I see very little speeding in West Cumbria - not because the population is unusually law-abiding, but because the speed limits are higher than te speed that most people select as being safe and appropriate!

I too have spent a bit of time cycling round our little lanes (including several trips with two toddlers in a canvas "rickshaw-like" trailer!) and gave up because (a) it was damned hard work and (b) I felt vulnerable. HOWEVER, the scariest encounters weren't cars doing 30, 40 or 50, they were tractors doing (for the most part) less than 20. Why? Because there was usually enough room for a car to pass, whereas the tractors (well, their trailers mainly) took up the whole width of the lane (and in some places, even carved a path for themselves into either verge!

Basically, speed is not necessarily the problem!

Personally in a perfect world I think the speed should be set at the 85 percentile with -5MPH for urban roads and +5 for rural/Motorways. These should be advisory
speeds only. But the penalty for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury should be the same as murder.
dreams are free.

Yes, I think that's the crux of the whole argument! We need to make drivers concentrate on "safe" rather than just "slow"! We need to break the mental link that has been so carefully forged over the last 10 years or so by the authorities that "slow" = "safe"! Whether or not having the same penalty for causing a KSI ought to be the same as for murder, is pushing it a bit though - manslaughter perhaps!