Safe Speed Forums

I would suggest that the difference is academic. If you hit an immovable object head-on at 70mph, and the front of your car deforms by 1 metre as a result of the impact, you will experience a deceleration of around 50g - which is more than sufficient to kill you outright.
If you hit something like the central reservation or another car, the g forces you experience will depend on how much energy the other object absorbs - which might be your saving grace. A central reservation, for example, will probably deflect more if you hit it at 100mph than at 70mph, which will mitigate the force of the collision.
And you'll probably have lost some speed through braking anyway (around 20mph per second under hard braking) before you collide with whatever.
Because one cannot predict the outcome of such an event - it depends on a whole number of factors, it's best to minimise the probability of it happening.
Personally, I would rather not be next to a HGV if it suddenly changes lanes - I'd sooner risk going into the back of it at a small speed differential.

Cheers
Peter

I'll finish for now and take a deep breath.

One poster (a police officer) suggested:

Q:
I could talk to you all day about safe driving at 100mph. I could show you how it's done...

Driving behaviours and attitudes have developed over the years, and the motorist/police/speed limit interaction has developed with it. It's probably one of the reasons why our roads are as safe as they are.
UQ

I'm sorry if I don't treat you with the reverence that your job entails, but there is very little "safe" driving at 100 mph whatever you may have been trained to believe.

I grant you that you are probably the safest and the best trained drivers on the road, but never forget the term is relative. You would do well to remember that no matter how good your training, you're not guaranteed to be accident free - 90 killed and 765 injured from police pursuits over last 5 years of which 1/3 were innocent bystanders.

This isn't intended to rub your nose in it merely to point out that if the "best trained drivers" on the road are subject to accidents, what hope is there for us mere mortals.

Now here's the crux of my cause and why I think we are all complacent.

We all sit on our laurels and come out with glib comments such as "our roads are the safest in world" (they're not as a matter of fact but they are much better than average).

Again this is a relative term. But hang on, we're not talking about batting averages for the 2004 county cricket season, we're talking about a "League Table of Death". I don't care how near the top of it we are in the UK, what concerns me most are the 3,500 odd deaths and the other 33,000 serious accidents that happen every year and the widows and orphans that are left in their wake. I would like to see those numbers divided by 100 in the next 10 years

And if you want to think about something serious as you put your foot on the accelerator, look at the statistics for child accidents in OECD countries (that includes the UK). In terms of accidents for children, the biggest killer Motor Vehicles at 43% is almost 3x the next nearest cause drowning at 15%.

As I said on my first post, these posts were not intended to show me as "holier than thou", I just want to bring to the attention that in my opinion "speed kills". I don't deny that tailgating is just if not more dangerous than speeding, but that doesn't make speeding "more safe".

I've been caught speeding twice and both times I deserved my points. What's changed in me, well its nothing altrusitic, in fact the reason's more selfish - I have 2 young children and the one thing that keeps me awake at night is not paedophiles or deadly diseases but the simple statistic that if my child's life is to be taken from me, the highest probability is that it will be taken by motorist.

As my last piece of evidence, I offer a link to the IIHS. This is not some granola eating alternative transport group but the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the US. These are the people who pick up the pieces and pay the claims for all of us who have accidents. They don't have an agenda except to inform and possibly keep their claim rates down.

http://www.highwaysafety.org/safety_fac ... limits.htm

I hope that my little trolling managed to keep the discussion interesting and provide an alternative point of view. Yes, I know I'm hypocritical as an ex-speeder but at least I've proven that change can happen

And after all that long waffle -what have we discovered - that we have decided that the police officer was right in his decision - does he need our approval - if he does , he should start looking at his job prospects - which you lot are deroding. He looked at the facts, made his decision , and acted.

Ask yourself, in the place of this officer - what decision would you have made??
The trained officer judged that he was no risk - could a IAM driver have made that decision in the space he did.

PC GATSO CANT.

PC traffic cop can(due to experience/training /experience.)

I grew up with traffic cops -i respect their knowledge even although i have held a licence longer than they have years-WHY- because of all the training and knowledge they hold.

What this forum needs is a campaign to bring back traffic police.

British Drivers need educating, not fining

As i said on another post - IS ETOILLE A TROLL???

Not by my understanding of the definition.

Of course they have an agenda. Insurance companies look for every little excuse to avoid paying out.
The very first sentence on that link is, "Speeding reduces the time drivers have to avoid crashes". Now this is complete bunkum, which has been discussed at length on other threads. It sounds perfectly plausible - until you really think about it and start trying to put figures to the equation.
They're just regurgitating the same tired old rubbish that we've been hearing for years.

I too have children, and worry about their safety - but current policies are doing absolutely nothing to reduce the danger to them.

And I have suffered the loss of a very close family member to a low-speed RTA.

Cheers
Peter

If that is the case why do people walk away from 100mph+ crashes but most fatalities occure at less than 30.

Not quite that simple is it...

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

to me it's the disappated bit that's important. The "Speed kills" lobby, which should perhaps be renamed the "Extreme energy Disappation with hard objects may kill" lobby, assume that a collision will occur when in fact this is quite rare, and when it does, rarely happens at killing mv2, so should we reduce v or the chance of extreme disappation?

I don't think you'll find many people here who'd not like to see a similar reduction. The question you have to ask though is this - how many of the incidents leading to those deaths and serious injuries had excessive speed as the causation factor OR as a factor in the outcome of the incident. For sure, a 70+MPH smash on the motorway is going to hurt, and it'll make for some pretty serious looking wreckage on the evening news, but what about all the deaths and injuries caused when something goes tits-up with a vehicle travelling below the speed limit?




Again, how many of those deaths involved a speeding vehicle, and how many involved a poor innocent driver trying to drive safely, within the limits, and yet is faced with a child jumping into the road in front of their vehicle giving them no chance to stop/swerve? When I was growing up I could pretty much guarantee that every week I'd see at least one transport safety advert on the TV, and that at least one school assembly each term would be given over to a safety lecture from a cop, BR official, or someone else related to the transport industry. Sure, some kids of my generation still went ahead and did utterly stupid things like running into the road, playing on railway lines etc, but at least those of us who were sensible enough to know good advice when we saw/heard it were being given the opportunity to see/hear such advice...

These days kids are lucky if they get exposed to ANY sort of safety advice, so unless a kid is fortunate enough to get an equivalent safety education from friends and family, they aren't being given the chance to learn the right and wrong ways to behave around traffic. The result of this massive reduction in safety education is plain for all to see - kids and young adults stepping out into the road without so much as a glance to see if there's anything coming, interpreting the red man at pelican crossings to mean "go ahead, cross the road, who cares about the vehicles who've just had to emergency brake to avoid slamming into your fragile body, and whos drivers you should feel free to glare at/mouth obscenities at/give the finger(s) to if they so much as dare to show any hint of dissatisfaction with your road crossing skills", riding their bikes against the traffic on the wrong side of the road/up a one-way street, and generally treating the pedestrian sections of the Highway Code as something they can't be arsed to even read let alone obey, even though it really could make the difference between life and death to them one day soon...




Motorist yes, speeding motorist only possibly. That's the problem we're facing here - the brainwashing of the great British public into associating all road deaths and injuries with speeding, when the reality is that only a minority of such incidents are speeding-related.

[quote="Gizmo

If that is the case why do people walk away from 100mph+ crashes but most fatalities occure at less than 30.

Not quite that simple is it... [/quote]


Thats why the clowns run the UK circus - clowns only see accidents at 30 or less cos they don't or won't look for anything higher(don't fit in with scamerati facts)( Principle 1- only gather facts which prove that your hypethesis is correct).(Principle 2 - ignore all other facts which disprove your theary)

We are told by the police that average speeds are comming down on our roads. This MUST give a reduction in fatalities...right thats what we have been told all along.

Wrong, deaths are on the increase. QED, speed is not the cause.

Sometimes the facts prove the theory wrong.....bummer

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Safe is a relative term. I'm quite certain that Ian, with his training, is far safer at 100mph (when he judges it to be safe and prudent to do so) than an average driver at 70.



We're not sitting on our laurels, pal, we're trying to do something about it.

And our roads ARE the safest in the world (in terms of deaths per billion vehicle km, OECD 30 day standard - the proper measure of road safety.)

It's possible we've been overtaken in the last year or two by a country with unpublished figures. Holland is close, and Germany is moving up very fast.

Having the safest roads is no reason for complacency - but it should highlight some road safety formulae that actually work. Let's have more of whatever it is that works please. It sure as hell isn't speed enforcement by camera. In the camera era we've gone from fastest improving in Europe to slowest improving.



Their vested interest is in claims avoidance. They are arch twisters-of-fact and should not even remotely be trusted.

I have responded in detail to two of your previous posts (this makes three). You need to deal with the data or arguments presented if you expect me to take the trouble to provide detailed replies.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I too have children, but in my experience, they are more at risk in car parks - both THEY (my childen), and other motorists fail to appreciate the danger of driving slowly around parked cars looking for a space, instead of what is happening in front of you. More children are killed in situations where drivers are within the posted limit than exceeding it. When she was twelve, my cousin ran across the road - into the SIDE of a passing van - which was travelling at 35 - 40 mph in a NSL.
Now there is a PELICAN crossing, and a 40 mph limit at the same place on the road.
It's NOT the speed limit which is preventing a reoccurrence of any similar accident, although it is quite sensible at this point on the road, as the van driver proved all those years ago!!

When I drive on the motorway, you can see inattentive (inexperienced perhaps?) drivers, in lane 1 or 2, coming up to slower vehicles. If I am behind them in their lane, or in the lane beyond them, I see their approaching situation - they will be wishing to pull out and pass.
No matter whether I am going 10 ph faster, or 40 mph faster than they are, I am aware of their impending manouver - often BEFORE they are, and adjust either my speed, or lane or both to accomodate them.
It simply does not signify that an accident is bound to happen simply because a newby (or an idiot) fails to see a car approaching behind faster than he, and pulls out in front of it. ONLY if the approaching driver is driving without due care (speeding or otherwise) is that likely to occur.
Addressing those drivers is what will make driving safer.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

This equals out proportionately. Although you are alongside for a longer time when passing at a low differential speed, you are also visible for a much longer time as you approach.

At low differential speeds, you take longer to get into the blind spot in the first place. With higher differential speeds, you are alongside for less time, but you also spend less time visible to the slower car when coming up from behind. You are less likely to be seen when approaching at very high speed, and you invite inappropriate lane changes. It is hard to judge the speed of vehicle approaching from behind with one observation – two are required, which you are more likely to achieve in a low differential speed situation.

There is no zero risk proposition, unless people always do shoulder checks before changing lanes, which they don’t. In some parts of the US, lanes have equal priorities, reducing the lane changing. There is something to be said for this, although I’m not sure it outweighs the disadvantages of passing on both sides.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Everything we do contains an element of risk. It is for mature adults to assess that risk and decide if it is acceptable or not. Children need educating as to the risk of various activities, either through training or through example, particularly by their parents.
Whilst eliminating risk is a laudable activity, it has gone too far - like kids not playing sports, or not walking to school because of exaggerated fears of paedophiles. Young males, particularly, then seek out risks in other more dangerous forms, witness the two lads killed on Good Friday whilst "playing chicken" on the railway line here in the dark. The train was only doing 40-50 mph.
A lot of people would say cycling on the public highway is dangerous yet to me the risk is acceptable having taken various precautions. A crash at 25 mph 11 months ago was painful and I lost a fair bit of skin (road rash) but it didn't put me off cycling. On the other hand I wouldn't nomally dream of riding on a dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit - that is too risky for me.
We all have known someone who has died in a vehicle collision but we still accept the risks of driving, just as I am quite happy to accept the risk of train crashes whilst travelling by train - a friend was in one of the front coaches of the train derailed at 125 mph at Heck by Gary Hart in his Landrover and then flung into a field but he survived with cuts and heavy bruising.

Absolutely. I recall having a scare some years ago on the M1 whilst on my bike. In between taking glances over my shoulder and moving towards L3, a Porsche 'appeared' alongside me and then vanished into the distance at a massive differential speed to the prevailing traffic.
Passing a vehicle too slowly leaves you alongside and vulnerable for a protracted period, too fast and you risk not being seen by a normally competent driver making proper use of his/her mirrors.

That is not entirely possible with driving, because, unlike smoking, drinking and parachuting etc., it involves great risk to other people, not just to yourself. A risk that a person decides is acceptable to himself may be unacceptable to other stakeholders, who are his potential victims.



I don’t mind bikes too much – after all, they are vulnerable and pose small physical risks to people encased in their cars.



I accept that there are risks on the roads (and trains), but I think they can be reduced if people get with the programme. Risk is worth it if it gives value back. I want to limit the worthless risks that bad drivers cause through ignorance and stupidity.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Speed Kills? What sort of speed exactly?

I suspect it is the 'rate of motion' kind, although it could be the amphetamine suphate kind, which can lead to extreme exhaustion and malnutrition and eventual death, I suppose.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Could such aggressive m-way behaviour be related to greed/speed competitiveness, which is exacerbated by the “prioritised lanes” concept?



Perhaps the safest thing is to minimise change lanes! This is more or less what they do in LA. They get in lane and move along at the rate the lane goes in, and all the lanes go along at much the same rate. To add a cost to changing lane, they have rows of large, uncomfortable and LOUD glass knobs between the lanes, so there is no way you can cross into another lane without some discomfort! This puts people off (inappropriate?) lane changes. Unfortunately, there are two side effects. First, people get into ‘thumb in bum, mind in neutral’ mode, and second, people pass on the inside. I don’t know if these outweigh the benefits or not.

_________________
I stole this .sig