Safe Speed Forums

I am probably being extremely pedantic here, but I have been wondering about this for a little while. We all read, and generally accept the stats with reference to excess speed caused accidents. However, when excess speed is a factor, is it really?

Consider this (admittedly a little contrived) example.

We have a long straight road that runs through a village with a speed limit of 30mph, either side of this village the road is NSL. A driver is entering this village and slows to 40mph, so he is certainly speeding.

At the same time we have another person, he has had a few lunchtime beers, he now leaves the pub and makes his way home. Unfortunatley for whatever reason he walks straight into the road without looking. He is only 50ft from our speeding motorist who inevitably hits the pedestrian.

Now, as far as I am aware this would get put down as an excess speed accident, but it isn't really. It is jaywalking, if the pedestrian had been attentive, he would have waited for the car thus avoiding the accident.

Turning it around, if the motorist had been doing 30mph, he would have still hit the pedestrian (stopping distance at 30mph is 75ft).

Although horribly over-simplified, I am sure that there must be lots of incidents where simply because speeding was involved, that is reported as the cause, where in fact the cause is something completely different.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Have a look at:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr110.html and
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr112.html

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

/Devils advocate mode on..

But if you hit the aforementioned drunk at 30mph, then you will cause considerably less damage to his drunken arse than what you would at 40mph

/Devils advocate mode off.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

You are right, there are usually other factors and 'speed' is bundled in if one of the parties involved is deemed to be exceeding the limit or going too fast for the conditions and within the speed limit - very open to interpretation!

Contributory factors

'Speeding' how?

Almost certainly that is correct, and I believe this is the point of the hit me at 40 and there's an 80% chance etc. etc.

But surely the best way to cure a problem is not to cure the symptom, but the problem itself. In other words, don't minimise the damage from an impact, eliminate the impact.

A good example would be the underground train that derrailed a while back. The train manufacturer was well aware that the engines could fall off. After the crash the solution was to fit a metal cage around the engine to catch it when it fell off! Would the proper solution have been to engineer it so the engines didn't fall off?

{my bold}
I disagree. If the motorist was observant, he would have had seconds of warning of this and been way way away from the drunk, be it by slowing, slewing or stopping or all three (to hold back other motorists or whatever). If the pub opened up onto the road with no visibility, then the motorist really is at fault for doing more than, say, 10 mph.

I did say it was horribly over simplified, the scenario I was trying to create was that the drunk steps into the road without warning.

Equally we could argue that the bar tender is at fault for allowing him to get into this state. Should he face criminal charges as would be the case in the USA?

/Devils advocate mode on..

So lets make everywhere where a drunken pedestrian has access (even though they shouldn't be there) limited to 20mph

/Devils advocate mode off.

Odin

The only word I had a problem with in your simplified example was "inevitably". I acceptt the point you were trying to make - and do not immediately have an answer. Nevertheless, I felt that "inevitably" gave things a wrong flavour. Sorry if you feel I'm picking nits (which I probably was).

True. He'll only have two fatal injuries instead of three.

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

COAST system - applied properly - you note the pubs and potential hazards as part of the COA sweep of the road conditions.

However, Mad Doc has posted a number of press reports whereby the driver escaped a dangerous charge because the pedestrian was drunk. There was the case of the police van driver in the Manchester area - the girl - per her pals - deliberately walked at the van after a drunken tiff with one of her pals.

There were mistakes made on the part of the management of the shout - and the Coroner has called for improvements in GMP's police training. The shout was a Grade Two and the officers were not informed and took an attack by six thugs on one man to be a Grade One. call... which is natural reaction on their part. (Must admit this classifcation of the shout is a surprise anyway.)

But there have been others .... the lad who ran into traffic dodging a game of fisticuffs, a child running from a bully and another in panic from a big dog .. and with the best will in the world - collsions cannot always be avoided in this sort of situation.

Of course, a COAST alert driver will probably have eased off and slowed in case..

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Yes, this is the action most people will take.
Think about what you would do if you saw a drunken pedestrian staggering along. You'd slow down, wouldn't you, regardless of what speed you were doing beforehand.
This commonplace and absolutely vital behaviour of observing and slowing down when and where necessary, is something which is totally ignored by the anti-speed and anti-car fantasists.

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

Reality mode on

Average impact speeds bear no practical relationship to free travelling speeds in common use.

If we were hitting -say- child pedestrians in built up areas at free travelling speeds, we'd be killing at least 3,000 a year, not under 60.

[I think I'll leave reality mode on...]

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

In Gear hit the nail on the head there:



And I have always suspected that our BiB had the wherewithall to determine this at the scene. However I don't think our friends living in their detached world in parliament can work this out.

It's why we close off the roads after all incidents to gather as much evidence as possible. We check the drivers for drugs/drink and even try to ascertain if there was any driver fatigue if we can - as this is also a sadly growing problem these days given the long hours culture and busy -busy lifestyles. People do not seem able to chill out and relax properly.

(suspect this inability to relax is part of the road rage/poor driving standards problem too).

Also - we can check the car and forensics are so advanced now that we can establish when the brake pedal was pushed down. Injuries also give us strong clues and we use all this evidence to determine charges - and sometimes we even find pure tragic accident - in which case you cannot lay charges. However, those involved - causer and victims live a lifetime of deep guilt, deep sorrow, deep regrets....

However, drunken, illegal, thieving thug... we'd like to see these really hammered by the courts!

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

They cannot always be avoided, but they almost always can be, and are being.
That's why low speed limits cannot work - they just might save someone's skin in the odd unavoidable accident but, by moving the focus of driver behaviour from COAST principles to licence preservation, they very likely increase the number of (what should be) avoidable accidents.

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

True Pete and why I hammer COAST rather a lot. We need people to apply these principles of safety -led practice. Speed takes care of itself then as the driver tends to be at the safest speed for the condition - usually blipping around legal levels.

I fear that we are starting to educate to look for a speed trap first and all other hazards second.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

In this oversimplified version, there cannot be a complete answer.
I offer the following possible scenarios:

If the speed LIMIT was not there (no limits anywhere), and there was a duty on the driver to drive with due consideration and care instead, then he would be held entirely to blame!

In the simplified version, the DRUNK was responsible for the accident CAUSE, and the driver for the severity of the injuries. Ultimately, therefore, the driver would be expected to pay damages (assuming the drunk survived) in a civil case.

The driver is above the speed limit, but sees the drunk staggering to the pavement, lifts foot from the accellerator, brakes to slow, and looks for options such as steering around or behind the drunk.

The drunk staggers towards the pavement edge, and our driver is above the limit, and very close to the possible point of conflict. He steers away from the drunk, and accellerates PAST the point of conflict.

Driver strikes drunk, and is pilloried by the press and the drunk's relatives, who recount what a splendid family man he was, and provider for his wife and children. A member of the pub cricket team, who raise money for charity.
Case comes to court, and he gets sent down for death by dangerous driving because speed kills!

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

Obviously my humour was wasted Paul

Don't worry, I haven't signed myself up to the ranks of BW or TSM just yet, and have no intention of joining them either.

My only interpretation of excess speed is staying awake for 5 consectutive days

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

To be pedantic, "excessive speed" is usually defined as speed in excess of the speed limit. "Inappropriate speed" is speed that is excessive for the conditions. The two often coincide, but are entirely different concepts. Excessive speed may not be inappropriate (e.g. 80 mph on a quiet motorway), while inappropriate speed may not be excessive (e.g. 50 mph down a narrow country lane).

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed