A risk analysis of speeding

This thread has been going on for some time now and perhaps its time for a time out!!!

You may want to consider this in the discussion;

The law is there as guidance and within it there are tolerances; and tolerances elsewhere.

There is a tolerance within the speedometer in the car - when it says 40 mph you are probably doing no more than 37 mph.

There is a tolerance within the speed camera; when the limit is 40 mph you wont normally get your picture taken unless you're over 46 mph (I think, that needs checked out and may be different in different areas).

Combine these 2 and it could well be that although your speedometer says 80 (ish) your probably only doing 75 (ish) and the camera wont get you unless your actual speed is over 77 (ish).

Not all cameras have film in them, another tolerance.

Guidance to warn you where the speed cameras are, or may be, is available through GPS systems, and even included in some road maps,

Guidance in local newspapers and on local radio saying where the mobile speed cameras are, or may be, is available on the web.

If you get caught, your caught fair* and square. 

‘Ah but Officer its just wan wee murder’ said Billy Connelly in his younger days …..  You’ve got to draw a line somewhere and as written above drivers have a pretty wide fuzzy one before they race over it!

*I don’t think its fair for the Police to run around in unmarked high performance cars.  Have them by all means but be open and honest about it.  That was the open and honest approach ‘welcomed’ by drivers when speed cameras came out from behind the road signs!

* Hand held speed cameras are unfair.

After 40 years I think limits, particularly on motorways, should be increased to take into account the substantial improvements in car and road safety. 

PS If you do 80 mph over 100 miles (1 hour 15 minutes) you’ll only be 10 minutes ahead of the guy doing 70 (1 hour 25 minutes).  Given that you're unlikely to get 100 miles of unhindered driving in the UK you probably wouldn’t have time to get out and lock your door before the 70 mph man came up the road behind you!

livvy wrote: scarface wrote: No one denys that it makes accidents messier.  But is it often the sole reason for an accident?  I would guess no.  Collisions rarely have a single causation. There are 54 possible causation factors listed, but the most common one in fatalities is excessive speed. Time & time again, year on year.

Let's turn the issue on its head: how many fatalaties are there per mile of driving in excess of the speed limit? Because that would give me a very clear idea of how dangerous it is.

scarface wrote: As you may know from previous posts I am not a fan of 'targets', they tend to be unattainable and are just to make it look like action is being taken.  It's about time that people had a say in policy, rather than just swallowing whatever this dictatorship dreams up.  They should be asked whether they want lower speed limits and more cameras or stricter driver training.  After all the public pay for it either way.

When you vote a government in you give them a mandate to do what is necessary. They rarely offer you a referendum & I certainly can't see that ever happening on road transport policy or traffic law.

When causes are listed from an investigation.

There will be 1 precipitating factor from a list of 15. (This is the key action or failure that led to the impact.)
You then have upto 4 contributory factors from a lits of 54. (The causes that led to the precipitating factor or act.)


Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: Collisions rarely have a single causation. There are 54 possible causation factors listed, but the most common one in fatalities is excessive speed. Time & time again, year on year.

Probably because it is reasonably easy to judge after the fact, other factors may never be known if the occupants are dead.  So in some cases e.g. loss of concentration is not noted as a factor, but speed is, leading to a distortion of the figures. 

livvy wrote: Most collisions may happen at slower speeds, but very few fatal collisions happen at 20mph or under.

Sorry, I thought I implied that in my post.

livvy wrote: It's alright saying training's the answer & it is the best one. But there are huge hurdles with it & naturally if any government can reach their targets in cheaper easier ways that is what they will go for.

As you may know from previous posts I am not a fan of 'targets', they tend to be unattainable and are just to make it look like action is being taken. 
It's about time that people had a say in policy, rather than just swallowing whatever this dictatorship dreams up.  They should be asked whether they want lower speed limits and more cameras or stricter driver training.  After all the public pay for it either way. 

Nigel wrote: You miss my point Livvy, scameras are dealing with 7% of accidents, they don't do diddly squat for 93%, so to try and justify them on safety grounds ia a non starter, and just plays into the hands of the anti-camera brigade (me).

My feeling exactly.. Didn't have the percentages though


Edited by scarface

Nigel

Measuring inappropraite speed without a collision is very very difficult, because it's so subjective.

You can't limit speed on appropriateness, without a very very high degree of training. A level of training that is never ever going to be available to the general public. You just can't hand that responsibilty to people without such training.

Speed limits and their enforcement have little to do with appropriateness and much to do with setting a ceiling that is generous in giving time to those with limited skills, more so than allowing progress to those who are better skilled.

I do agree that if everyone was higher trained I don't see why we couldn't have more relaxed limits, but it's the chicken & the egg. You ahve to have the training before you can have higher limits & you have to be able to experience under supervision the way to manage it well whilst travelling at those speeds.


Edited by livvy

scarface wrote: No one denys that it makes accidents messier.  But is it often the sole reason for an accident?  I would guess no.

Collisions rarely have a single causation. There are 54 possible causation factors listed, but the most common one in fatalities is excessive speed. Time & time again, year on year.

I'm sure that better training would cut more accidents than reducing speed.  Although ultimately Spokey is right, nothing would cut deaths better than a blanket 20mph speed limit.  People would still crash though, most accidents seem to happen at low speeds.

I'm sure better training would lead to a better use & judgement of the appropriateness of speed for circumstances.
Banning driving alltogther would actually cut deaths better than a 20mph limit, people wouldn't have RTCs at all then.

Most collisions may happen at slower speeds, but very few fatal collisions happen at 20mph or under.

On the subject of better training costing more money, maybe that's the price we have to pay.  It could pay off in reduced insurance premiums and less congestion.  Unfortuantely we've got used to being able to drive being a god given right.  Some people maybe aren't up to it.  We would of course have to improve our public transport a great deal before implementing stricter driving standards.

It's alright saying training's the answer & it is the best one. But there are huge hurdles with it & naturally if any government can reach their targets in cheaper easier ways that is what they will go for.


Edited by livvy

And your source for these figures is...?

Edited by spokey

livvy wrote: scarface wrote: Nigel wrote: How about, scameras have absolutely nothing to do with road safety. They are there to enforce the law...period. Probably the closest we've come to the truth.  Road safety is the flimsy justification to answer our irritating questions.  In actual fact it is a way to efficiently help prevent people from breaking a certain law.  Not a HUGELY important law, in the grand scheme of things, IMO, but a law none the less.  One less to bother actual police officers.  But every fatal road traffic collision is thoroughly investigated. Excesive speed is the highest recurring contributory cause in those collisions, being present in a third of those fatal collisions (figures gained from those very investigations.) In motorcycle fatalities the figure is nearer 50%. Is it any wonder then that the government look to control speed ?

Yes, I'm sure it's a third, livvy. I'm sure it is. No, honest. Really, I am.

Nigel wrote: How about, scameras have absolutely nothing to do with road safety. They are there to enforce the law...period. Now what arguement do you have ?

That would be a lovely statement of the truth. Apart from the bit it's missing: "And collect more revenue from motorists."

The arbitrary nature of the law leaves me with little doubt that it is unfair and unjust.

It is very easy for your speed to vary by a couple of MPH. You might get a cramp, or sneeze, or whatever, and in that second, you could get snapped.

What do you say when a road has had NO accidents on it, but because of activism, the speed limit gets dropped by 10 MPH? Yesterday, I was doing 60 safely and responsibly on this road, today, on the same stretch of road in the same conditions, I'm a crazy law-breaker, exceeding the speed limit by 20%!!

The whole problem for me is that speeding is criminalised because the government is unwilling to expend a bit of effort and make us all better, safer, smoother drivers; and keep us like that. The philosophy is NOT "let's make better drivers", it's "we can't be @rsed to do anything about making it better, so let's just make it slower." The problem with this approach is that it further defers the issue and makes an actual correction even less likely. I really would not be surprised within my lifetime to find a ridiculous blanket speed limit, like 40MPH and there will STILL be idiots killing themselves because they still can't drive and there will still be pious, sanctimonious morons like Transport 2000 advocating even slower limits.

So, starting from the perspective that the philosophy is wrong, the law that "defends" the philosophy is also wrong, then the enforcement of that law is ALSO wrong.

Cameras enforce the law, I can't argue with that. I can argue with the value of the law, though. I can argue with the arbitrary nature of the law, as well. I can definitely argue with the reasoning behind the law as well.

Spokey

How about, scameras have absolutely nothing to do with road safety.

They are there to enforce the law...period.

Now what arguement do you have ?