The Times Today (Friday)
Comments
-
DonDaddyD wrote:
Lower speeds would not help prevent all road accidents.
Why?
Not all road accidents are a result of speed/excessive speed and thus solved by driving slower.
Nobody's said speed causes all accidents.0 -
This was my entire post:davis wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:That's just erroneous. How likely is it that all parties are going to be stationary? Movement has to be involved for an object to collide yes. The speed at which the object, in this case a car, isn't always the cause for it's collision with another object.
And here's the crux: if you're going more slowly, you will be more likely to be able to stop and avoid a collision.
I know that DfT stats say that "excessive use of speed" is the primary (I think they still only record the primary) cause in only around a third of accidents, but in every accident I've had been involved in, I'd rather everyone involved was travelling much more slowly, or even stopped.I wrote:That's just erroneous. How likely is it that all parties are going to be stationary? Movement has to be involved for an object to collide yes. The speed at which the object, in this case a car, isn't always the cause for it's collision with another object.
What if the brakes fail or the driver losing conciousness. Even at 10mph or 5mph the inability to stop outweighs the overall speed of movement of the vehicle.
Furthermore a cyclist RLJs through a junction and is hit by a car travelling at 20mph in a 30mph zone. It's not the motorists fault. He may have been able to stop in time had he been driving at 10mph, he is not required to do so.
At what point do you say that's slow/fast enough and assess whether other road users are being responsible?
Let's say that visibility is poor/restricted from the direction the cyclist is coming from and that no amount of speed or lack-there-of would have enabled the motorist to stop altoegther, save him not driving the car or going at 0mph which is ridiculous.
Speed is not virtually the only thing in common in road accidents in that it is the cause and driving slower isn't always the solution.
Greg's point stands had the motorist been driving at 40mph he'd had have been ahead of the collision altogether. So there is a counter arguement that driving faster also helps avoide accidents.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
This was my entire post:davis wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:That's just erroneous. How likely is it that all parties are going to be stationary? Movement has to be involved for an object to collide yes. The speed at which the object, in this case a car, isn't always the cause for it's collision with another object.
And here's the crux: if you're going more slowly, you will be more likely to be able to stop and avoid a collision.
I know that DfT stats say that "excessive use of speed" is the primary (I think they still only record the primary) cause in only around a third of accidents, but in every accident I've had been involved in, I'd rather everyone involved was travelling much more slowly, or even stopped.I wrote:That's just erroneous. How likely is it that all parties are going to be stationary? Movement has to be involved for an object to collide yes. The speed at which the object, in this case a car, isn't always the cause for it's collision with another object.
What if the brakes fail or the driver losing conciousness. Even at 10mph or 5mph the inability to stop outweighs the overall speed of movement of the vehicle.
Furthermore a cyclist RLJs through a junction and is hit by a car travelling at 20mph in a 30mph zone. It's not the motorists fault. He may have been able to stop in time had he been driving at 10mph, he is not required to do so.
At what point do you say that's slow/fast enough and assess whether other road users are being responsible?
Let's say that visibility is poor/restricted from the direction the cyclist is coming from and that no amount of speed or lack-there-of would have enabled the motorist to stop altoegther, save him not driving the car or going at 0mph which is ridiculous.
Speed is not virtually the only thing in common in road accidents in that it is the cause and driving slower isn't always the solution.
Greg's point stands had the motorist been driving at 40mph he'd had have been ahead of the collision altogether. So there is a counter arguement that driving faster also helps avoide accidents.
Take the opposite view.
Why don't you drive at 80mph everywhere?
If you can answer that, you can probably answer why 20mph speed limits are safer than 30mph limits.0 -
No, what you said is that (virtually) speed is the shared factor in all road accidents and driving slower would help to avoid this.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Lower speeds would not help prevent all road accidents.
Why?
Not all road accidents are a result of speed/excessive speed and thus solved by driving slower.
Nobody's said speed causes all accidents.
What I'm saying is that speed isn't the only factor road accidents have in common and driving at a slower speed won't always help to prevent an acident from happening.Mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
If a road is too narrow for a car to safely pass me without crossing the white line then I always ride in primary.EKE_38BPM wrote:Do you always stop in a primary position at a set of traffic lights?
Picture the scene.
Empty road. Ped crossing. Red light. You stop and wait for the ped to cross and the light to turn green before applying the awesome. Car approaches from behind.
Would you have stopped in primary on the empty road in anticipation of the car that wasn't behind you when you stopped, or would you have stopped towards the lefthand side of the carriageway, where you were riding? In otherwords, would you have pulled into primary even though nothing was behind you?
If you ride on the inside where it is tight then you are inviting someone to squeeze by with the inherant risks - to the cyclist.
Also, it reduces the risk of being doored.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Greg's point stands had the motorist been driving at 40mph he'd had have been ahead of the collision altogether. So there is a counter arguement that driving faster also helps avoide accidents.
Guffaw, let's all drive at 100 mph to "avoid accidents"!
As barking mad points go, it's a doozy!0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Greg's point stands had the motorist been driving at 40mph he'd had have been ahead of the collision altogether. So there is a counter arguement that driving faster also helps avoide accidents.
Guffaw, let's all drive at 100 mph to "avoid accidents"!
As barking mad points go, it's a doozy!
*164mph
Relevant PSA from Armando Iannucci.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ew8rdu7ZY40 -
That's not the point I'm making here.Rick Chasey wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
This was my entire post:davis wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:That's just erroneous. How likely is it that all parties are going to be stationary? Movement has to be involved for an object to collide yes. The speed at which the object, in this case a car, isn't always the cause for it's collision with another object.
And here's the crux: if you're going more slowly, you will be more likely to be able to stop and avoid a collision.
I know that DfT stats say that "excessive use of speed" is the primary (I think they still only record the primary) cause in only around a third of accidents, but in every accident I've had been involved in, I'd rather everyone involved was travelling much more slowly, or even stopped.I wrote:That's just erroneous. How likely is it that all parties are going to be stationary? Movement has to be involved for an object to collide yes. The speed at which the object, in this case a car, isn't always the cause for it's collision with another object.
What if the brakes fail or the driver losing conciousness. Even at 10mph or 5mph the inability to stop outweighs the overall speed of movement of the vehicle.
Furthermore a cyclist RLJs through a junction and is hit by a car travelling at 20mph in a 30mph zone. It's not the motorists fault. He may have been able to stop in time had he been driving at 10mph, he is not required to do so.
At what point do you say that's slow/fast enough and assess whether other road users are being responsible?
Let's say that visibility is poor/restricted from the direction the cyclist is coming from and that no amount of speed or lack-there-of would have enabled the motorist to stop altoegther, save him not driving the car or going at 0mph which is ridiculous.
Speed is not virtually the only thing in common in road accidents in that it is the cause and driving slower isn't always the solution.
Greg's point stands had the motorist been driving at 40mph he'd had have been ahead of the collision altogether. So there is a counter arguement that driving faster also helps avoide accidents.
Take the opposite view.
Why don't you drive at 80mph everywhere?
If you can answer that, you can probably answer why 20mph speed limits are safer than 30mph limits.
Neither is that.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Greg's point stands had the motorist been driving at 40mph he'd had have been ahead of the collision altogether. So there is a counter arguement that driving faster also helps avoide accidents.
Guffaw, let's all drive at 100 mph to "avoid accidents"!
As barking mad points go, it's a doozy!
In the context of what I'm saying my point is this: Driving slower is not virtually always going to be the best way of preventing a road accident. Why? Because speed/excess speed isn't always the sole cause of a road accident.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
That's the point everyone else is making.Rick Chasey wrote:
That's not the point I'm making here.DonDaddyD wrote:
Take the opposite view.
Why don't you drive at 80mph everywhere?
If you can answer that, you can probably answer why 20mph speed limits are safer than 30mph limits.0 -
Poppycock! Lowering speeds might reduce some accidents, not all.Mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.0 -
Ok, you're apparently not keen on my partial quoting. FWIW I did read your entire post.
I have to admit I'm at least partly reacting to your blanket statements, some of which annoyed me.
You can describe any hypothetical or actual situation you like, you really can. I'm not going to say that increasing or reducing speed will definitively cause or avoid e.g. a specific collision. I'm only saying that on average, over a large number of cases, going more slowly makes a collision somewhat less likely(*). Furthermore, in the event of a collision -- and let's face it, they'll happen for some of the reasons you describe -- the impact is reduced.
*: Yeah, I know. This one's the contentious one. Speed's one of many many contributing factors in an individual accident, and it's never that black and white.Sometimes parts break. Sometimes you crash. Sometimes it’s your fault.0 -
Driving slower is not always going to be the best way of preventing a road accident. Why? Because speed/excess speed is not always the sole cause of a road accident.Rick Chasey wrote:
That's the point everyone else is making.Rick Chasey wrote:
That's not the point I'm making here.DonDaddyD wrote:
Take the opposite view.
Why don't you drive at 80mph everywhere?
If you can answer that, you can probably answer why 20mph speed limits are safer than 30mph limits.
Yes in heavily populated residential areas 20mph may be useful such as on a road with a school. But the provision of a lower speed limit won't automatically mean that all types of road accidents are now somewhow nullified.
People have been hit by vehicles travelling at 20mph. What? You want vehicles to travel slower still?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Poppycock! Lowering speeds might reduce some accidents, not all.Mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtually
By and large, drivers don't want to smash into things. They will avoid crashes. Lower speeds allow them to avoid most crashes.
To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed? Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year. The authors of TRL 421 suggest that this target (about a sixth of the overall speed related casualty figure) is a ‘reasonable minimum’ to aim for.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:People have been hit by vehicles travelling at 20mph. What? You want vehicles to travel slower still?
Are you intentionally being obtuse here? a) Stopping distance is shorter at 20mph and b) You're more likely to survive being hit by a vehicle driving at 20mph than 30mph or higher speeds.0 -
So basically on that point you agree with me.davis wrote:Ok, you're apparently not keen on my partial quoting. FWIW I did read your entire post.
I have to admit I'm at least partly reacting to your blanket statements, some of which annoyed me.
You can describe any hypothetical or actual situation you like, you really can. I'm not going to say that increasing or reducing speed will definitively cause or avoid e.g. a specific collision.
Not always but sometimes. Yes.I'm only saying that on average, over a large number of cases, going more slowly makes a collision somewhat less likely(*).
True, though the impact being reduced may be nonconsequential to the outcome of the impact itself. That needs to be acknowledged. A car hitting you at 20mph and not 30mph can still injure or even kill.Furthermore, in the event of a collision -- and let's face it, they'll happen for some of the reasons you describe -- the impact is reduced.
Which is what I was trying to say all along to this blanket statement that irked me:*: Yeah, I know. This one's the contentious one. Speed's one of many many contributing factors in an individual accident, and it's never that black and white.
[/quote][/quote]Mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I'm bored of this, I'm going down to the local nuthouse to watch a different group of people pound their (unhelmetted) heads into a wall over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Lower speeds allow them to avoid most crashes.
Source please (identifying how much "lower" and that more than 50% of crashes would thereby be avoided).0 -
YES! but the point is that people can still be hit by vehicles travelling at 20mph. Lowering a speed limit to 20mph won't mean all road accidents are now avoidable. Only some and even then more preventable not avoidable. So you have to weigh up how effective lowering the speed limit will be in that given area where you are trying to help prevent a certain type of accident not all accidents.notsoblue wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:People have been hit by vehicles travelling at 20mph. What? You want vehicles to travel slower still?
Are you intentionally being obtuse here? a) Stopping distance is shorter at 20mph and b) You're more likely to survive being hit by a vehicle driving at 20mph than 30mph or higher speeds.
Point in case a 20mph speed limit won't help prevent the type of accident I see at that junction that has a left turn just before you get to the lights going straight. (Similar setup over Blackfriars Bridge - onto the Embankment).
20mph won't help stop hitting a person jumping out infront of you if they are inside your braking distance
Keep in mind that I saw a bus hit and kill a woman which was travelling less than 20mph.
20mph limit won't help you stop if your brakes fail. Or if someone RLJs infront of you and your vision is obscured.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
OkayDonDaddyD wrote:0 -
Now you're being obtuse. So I'm bowing out.notsoblue wrote:Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
davis wrote:I'm only saying that on average, over a large number of cases, going more slowly makes a collision somewhat less likely(*).
*: Yeah, I know. This one's the contentious one. Speed's one of many many contributing factors in an individual accident, and it's never that black and white.
It is indeed.
We can probably all agree that (a) if your speed is 0 mph you are not going to collide with anything (something may hit you, but that's not what we're talking about); (b) if your speed is infinite, you will be everywhere at once, and so collide with everyone at the same time.
However, how do you get from there (assuming that is the right starting point) to concluding that you are more likely to have a collision at 30mph than you are at 20mph? Because that proposition seems to me to carry a number of silent assumptions about traffic density around you, type of road, time of day, etc.
The other point that gets a bit lost here is that whichever you choose out of 30 or 20 as your limit, a small minority of incidents occur with a car going that that speed: in most cases there is some braking time.
Now it may be right that when the 20 mph car has stopped the 30 mph car is still moving at speed X, but putting my parent hat on, the stat I'd be most interested in is what proportion of peds suffer permanent injuries or death when hit at speed X.0 -
How egregious of you...DonDaddyD wrote:
0 -
Greg66 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Lower speeds allow them to avoid most crashes.
Source please (identifying how much "lower" and that more than 50% of crashes would thereby be avoided).
http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/files/10myths031220.pdf
A few stats and sources to sink your teeth into Gregg.0 -
notsoblue wrote: NSB you beat me to it...
DDD, I'll PM you re the Mazda 6, nothing to add to what's been discussed (ad nauseum) on the rest.0 -
Greg:A vehicle travelling at a speed limit of 20mph at the onset of an incident would stop in time to avoid a child running out three car-lengths in front. The same vehicle initially breaking this limit at 25mph would still be travelling at 18 mph at the three car lengths marker. A pedestrian hit at 18 mph by a 1 ton car would be likely to suffer death or serious injury. To imagine the effect this is roughly the same as a child falling out backwards and head first from an upstairs window
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/speedscience.htm0 -
-
Greg66 wrote:davis wrote:I'm only saying that on average, over a large number of cases, going more slowly makes a collision somewhat less likely(*).
*: Yeah, I know. This one's the contentious one. Speed's one of many many contributing factors in an individual accident, and it's never that black and white.
It is indeed.
We can probably all agree that (a) if your speed is 0 mph you are not going to collide with anything (something may hit you, but that's not what we're talking about); (b) if your speed is infinite, you will be everywhere at once, and so collide with everyone at the same time.
However, how do you get from there (assuming that is the right starting point) to concluding that you are more likely to have a collision at 30mph than you are at 20mph? Because that proposition seems to me to carry a number of silent assumptions about traffic density around you, type of road, time of day, etc.
The other point that gets a bit lost here is that whichever you choose out of 30 or 20 as your limit, a small minority of incidents occur with a car going that that speed: in most cases there is some braking time.
Now it may be right that when the 20 mph car has stopped the 30 mph car is still moving at speed X, but putting my parent hat on, the stat I'd be most interested in is what proportion of peds suffer permanent injuries or death when hit at speed X.
This is the crux of it: even if the number of accidents remained unchanged, if the speed was a third lower, there would be less severe consequences to those accidents that did occur on account of receiving lower energy impacts.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:You post here but not on the daily mail thread?
Sad. Face.
Kinda wanted him in the NHS thread too. Maybe if we lead a trail of tax loopholes and miniature-union jacks from MBC's posts to these threads he might appear.0 -
Sorry me?notsoblue wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:You post here but not on the daily mail thread?
Sad. Face.
Kinda wanted him in the NHS thread too. Maybe if we lead a trail of tax loopholes and miniature-union jacks from MBC's posts to these threads he might appear.
I thought "we" had decided that the Daily Mail was garbage and shoddy journalism and should be ridiculed and ignored? Or have we changed our tune because it says something that "we" want to hear?
FWIW, ignoring Monibot's obvious (and incorrect) spin, it's not that hard to agree with the conclusion that the report seems to come to - that extremists are stupid. That goes for the looney left and the fascist right.
Don't know enough on the subject to add to the NHS thread.0 -
W1 wrote:
Sorry me?notsoblue wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:You post here but not on the daily mail thread?
Sad. Face.
Kinda wanted him in the NHS thread too. Maybe if we lead a trail of tax loopholes and miniature-union jacks from MBC's posts to these threads he might appear.
I thought "we" had decided that the Daily Mail was garbage and shoddy journalism and should be ridiculed and ignored? Or have we changed our tune because it says something that "we" want to hear?
Don't think anyone in that thread is taking it seriously.
Unless you're too right-wing (I mean stupid) to realise. 0
