|
Tsk tsk Dutchie,
you too have apparently been brainwashed.
Accidents are caused by "inappropriate speed" (re the 4% on "B" roads comment )
this inappropriate speed in slippery or foggy conditions could be as little as 20mph.
In other circumstances in exactly the same location 90 or 100 mph may well be safe.
|
|
|
|
Of course speed kills. Take single vehicle accidents, for example. - like skidding off a bend and hitting a tree. I've never heard of anyone doing that because they were going too slowly of going at the right speed. It's all to do with kinetic energy, which goes up with the square of speed. If you hit someing at 40 mph you hit it with 4 times as much force as if you hit it at 20 mph.
I agree excessive speed isn't the only cause of accidents but it's a factor in many.
QUOTE:...""Top gear had a survey if that makes any sense that 4%of accidents on B roads are caused by speed."" .
yes......and 45% were caused by 'the other driver', 28% by trees, 12% by walls and 11% by telegraph poles. Top Gear 'survey' ...I had to laugh!
Edited by Sofa Spud on 17/05/2011 at 13:04
|
|
Strictly speaking, speed doesn't kill - it's the sudden stop that does it every time :-)
Edited by Andy P on 17/05/2011 at 13:21
|
|
Quite. It's whatever you hit ;-P
Seriously, I am in favour of upping the limit a little bit on motorways (NOT in towns). Most traffic does over 70mph quite reasonably, and it keeps the flow of traffic going. For example, watching the behaviour of drivers on the M6 when there were a lot of police cars about one day, it came to my notice that the traffic becomes chaotic as nobody wants to pass anyone else and get nicked for speeding. It became an almost untenable situation, with all three lanes doing 70mph, except where there were lorries. I felt jostled and the car behind me drove too close, but the guy in the next lane wouldn't overtake so nobody had anywhere to go.
|
|
|
|
Actually most accidents are apparently caused by haunted or demonic possessed cars.
To wit: the driver stated that "the car skidded", " the car left the road", "the car collided with....." etc etc
I.e. Absolutly not caused by driver input.
PS
Sofa Spud
Again I say "inappropriate speed" ie too fast for the conditions or driver skill set, or perhaps less likely for the mechanical condition of the car.
|
|
Indeed - I have a friend who has encountered several mythical rocks and black ice, once while smashing into his boss' car in their work car park. How strange and mysterious.
Black ice, in particular, is a problem, particularly in a dry late March, when a taxi ploughs into the back of you on a roundabout. The black ice made his car misbehave.
|
|
Black ice may be a problem in late March, but deadly spots of spilt diesel fuel seem to be endemic throughout the year...
...according to someone I know on his 3rd car in as many years.
I'd love to see the defence for the tree claim: "I was just going about my business hurtling around a blind bend at 60mph when a tree pulled out in front of me..." .Hope the tree had 3rd party insurance.
|
|
Statistics are all here in great detail if you want to have a look.
"Travelling too fast for conditions" was a factor in 18% of fatal accidents and "Exceeding speed limit" was a factor in 14% of fatal accidents.
The most reported factors for fatal accidents were "Loss of control" (35%) and "Failed to look properly" (19%).
|
|
Interesting. Having said that trying to disentangle 'loss of control' from 'excessive speed' is virtually impossible. Sometimes I exceed the limit-sometimes I drive below the limit. Fixed limits are very crude. The idea of variable speed limits on motorways according to weather conditions seems perfectly sensible to me, although the elf 'n' safety Hitlers at Brake would shrilly denounce any attempt to raise speed limits. Can't we just designate an area of Britain (say Wales) where no one is allowed to drink, smoke, drive, operate heavy machinery, eat meat etc. and the most risk averse people can be dumped in this ghetto and leave everyone else to get on with their lives?
|
|
Again I fail to see how " exceeding the speed limit" can be noted as the cause of an accident, unless doing really excessive excess speed, but this would be better covered by sommat like................
"driving too fast with an inappropriate degree of skill, in defiance of road & traffic conditions etc" might make some sense.
Do I?
|
|
Anyway I understood Islington or Hackney or some of those loony Boroughs had already been so designated, as opposed to Wales.
|
|
Ive never bought the "speed kills" argument, as by "speed" they mean 'any speed over the speed limit which the government has decided on', presumably hitting something within their speed limit means you'll be perfectly ok.
No?
|
|
The appropriate speed for any given bit of road constantly varies. It could change in minutes i.e. the road itself if the weather or physical conditions vary... and it changes with the individual vehicles and drivers.
What was o.k today, might not be o.k. tomorrow. What was o.k. ten minutes ago, might not be now as the kids are coming out of school... etc.
The appropriate speed for any given circumstance, might be higher than the posted limit, albeit that would be illegal.
Speed limits are factored in for various reasons and increasingly nowadays are becoming lower and lower. The trouble with that is more and more people don't think for themselves, which is ultimately a bad thing....and with a 'nanny state' approach, it'll get worse.
|
|
There is much confusion here.
I have never heard any serious expert claim that "speed kills". The argument is that when driver error , neglect, poor technique, venicle malfunction occurs, if the vehicle is travelling at an inappropriate speed, the reaction time to recover is reduced and the consequences of impact are increased.
When you hear about cars hitting people ( for example) queueing at a bus-stop, and causing serious injury, almost certainly the driver was negligent or unskilled, and at the speed used ( which is probably in excess of the limit, given where most bus-stops are sited) did not have time to recover, the injured did not have time to respond, and the scale of impact was severe.
|
I have never heard any serious expert claim that "speed kills". The argument is that when driver error , neglect, poor technique, venicle malfunction occurs, if the vehicle is travelling at an inappropriate speed, the reaction time to recover is reduced and the consequences of impact are increased.
The problem is, the 40mph everywhere brigade think they are 'good drivers'... and look down their noses at 'dangerous speedsters'. You know the ones, if you overtake them on an 'A' road they'll automatically give you a load of main beam 'because it's dangerous'?
Those that might do significantly less than 30mph down a narrow city street, with cars parked either side, raining, kids on the way to school..... but might happily do 85 mph up a deserted m/way...know otherwise...and resent being lumped into the same category as the clown who significantly speeds everywhere and is not only unaware, but doesn't care either....and all this from someone hopelessly unaware of their surroundings anyway.
Then when you try to fight your corner and actually educate them...they'll try to lump you in the overall speeding category that also includes the truly dangerous or even criminally insane...which no one in their right mind would try to support.
It's called a 'time and place', like many things in life.
|
|
The 40 everywhere driver is the most unsafe driver on the road ... because no thought processes are in evidence to show that the driver is actually thinking about what is an appropriate speed for that stretch.
I have to laugh at the morons whom I overtake in the 60 zone when they're doing 40, only for them to catch me up and tailgate me when I'm doing 30 through a village. I've even had one (dangerously) overtake me through such a village, only for me to have to overtake them a second time once we leave.
|
|
Ive been on quite a few stretches where it goes from 40 to national speed limit and most people dont notice and continue doing 40. If its only a small stretch then why bother speeding up i guess, wasting petrol to cover 100 yards quicker isnt going to make much difference to your day, but its when its several miles and they still dont notice is alarming.
Has anyone here Ever had that moment when on B roads when you're doing just under the limit and someone decides its ok to do 100 and they come thundering past you just as you see the oncoming car and you think "he's not gonna make it...he's not..he wont...he's not gonna make it" in 2007 i was the car being overtaken by such a loony and it happened.
I think the kindest way i could describe the end result was "insurance write off" to the poor sod's motor.
|
I have to laugh at the morons whom I overtake in the 60 zone when they're doing 40, only for them to catch me up and tailgate me when I'm doing 30 through a village. I've even had one (dangerously) overtake me through such a village, only for me to have to overtake them a second time once we leave.
You are obviously one of those people who regard the posted signs regarding various speeds as the minimum speed to travel at where as they are the ABSOLUTE maximum allowed. So who are you to decide exactley what speed another vehicle should be travelling at ? A ten mile stretch of dual carriage way at 40mph would take 15mins to travel. At 60mph it would take 10mins. Wow, what a saving, five whole mins ! I`m sure that every single minute is so important to you ! I venture to suggest that when asked the question, how long does it take you to drive to work you are one of those people who reply, Oh, ten mins (or whatever) regardless of what the conditions of the road or weather are.
|
You are obviously one of those people who regard the posted signs regarding various speeds as the minimum speed to travel at where as they are the ABSOLUTE maximum allowed. So who are you to decide exactley what speed another vehicle should be travelling at ? A ten mile stretch of dual carriage way at 40mph would take 15mins to travel. At 60mph it would take 10mins. Wow, what a saving, five whole mins ! I`m sure that every single minute is so important to you ! I venture to suggest that when asked the question, how long does it take you to drive to work you are one of those people who reply, Oh, ten mins (or whatever) regardless of what the conditions of the road or weather are.
As we are making completely groundless assumptions, you are obviously one of those people who consider driving at 33% over the speed limit in rural villages is completely acceptable.
You take the time to make a completely unsubstantiated claim that I break speed limits, whilst tacitly condoning the actions of those who do break them, and in the most dangerous places at that -- built-up areas. All that whilst simultaneously trying to claim that those who overtake are dictating to others what speed to travel.
So, with that in mind, who are you exactly to decide anything at all?
Unbelievable.
I have no particular problem with those who do not feel happy travelling at the speed limit. I have every problem with those who TOTALLY IGNORE speed limits, and travel around at 40mph regardless of the limit at the time. By taking issue with the tone of my post, while not even attempting to address this point even when you quote it, can only lead to the conclusion that you condone the actions of people who drive in this manner.
Edited by primeradriver on 22/05/2011 at 02:56
|
|
|
|
|
