Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Speed Kills Or Inability Of Use Of Speed?

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
TSR Movie Madness in in to the final 16! The group winners battle it out for the overall title! 15-07-2014
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    lol. I only listen to sense.

    I didn't set the speed limits. I'm assuming going over them is going to fast and that limits are higher on open roads and roads where you can see whats coming (you have more time to react) because it's the only way to generalize. No-one has the ability to say exactly what speed is safe on every specific road (especially not individuals), but going over the limit is unnecessary.
    If nobody has the ability yo say what speed is safe, then what have you been doing all day? And how can you say that going over the limit is unnecessary if you can't even be sure it's not safe.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1909)
    And yet nobody in the thread has suggested they would want to hit a child, why are you bringing it up?
    I was making the point that whether speed (as in distance over time) kills has nothing to do with who's fault it is. If you kill someone, you've killed someone.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1909)
    If nobody has the ability yo say what speed is safe, then what have you been doing all day? And how can you say that going over the limit is unnecessary if you can't even be sure it's not safe.
    1) I really have no idea.

    2) If you can't be sure something's safe then it's not safe. I'm assuming speed limits are there for a reason.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    I was making the point that whether speed (as in distance over time) kills has nothing to do with who's fault it is. If you kill someone, you've killed someone.
    Yes, of course, nobody will deny that. However, there's a big difference in what happens next depending on who was at fault.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1909)
    Yes, of course, nobody will deny that. However, there's a big difference in what happens next depending on who was at fault.
    Obviously, but it's not relevant.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    Obviously, but it's not relevant.
    It is when you give blanket statements saying it makes no difference who is at fault. Had you specified who it makes no difference to then maybe it would have not been relevant, but as you didn't...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1909)
    It is when you give blanket statements saying it makes no difference who is at fault. Had you specified who it makes no difference to then maybe it would have not been relevant, but as you didn't...
    Fair point. I was annoyed...
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    Speed can kill you or someone around you. If you're on your own then the only person you can potentially kill is yourself, which can happen. And if you're travelling at speed a distraction, such as a heart attack/seizure, is more likely to kill you.
    There you go, you your very self are implying that speed in itself doesn't kill, just aggravates the accident if it were to take place, also the speed itself doesn't cause the accident, there's always another factor (such as having a heart attack at the wheel like you just mentioned).

    (Original post by besomebody)
    Yeah, of couse if you're living in a world where you don't have to account for living things and you have superhuman reflexes and the superhuman ability to not be distracted by anything, then it's all about ability, but I just assumed we were talking about humans, on Earth.

    Accidents are caused by errors (whether human or mechanical). Speed restricts your ability to compensate for the errors or makes the consequences worse. No-one's able to handle speed because no-one can anticipate everything. (areoplanes are less likely to crash into anything and airspace is monitored, but even so, accidents happen.)

    Don't question my logic!!!!
    [Ignore my dumb aeroplane analogy]

    Based on this part do you then agree that 'speed kills'. Because by saying that you're basically saying speed without being coupled with any other factor is capable of killing you. Cause if you think that then why do more accidents occur in 30mph roads?

    (Original post by silverbolt)
    The massive flaw with the plane vs car stats is that there are a lot more cars with a lot more people in
    them than there are planes. The second argument is reaction time, whilst in theory your correct from
    a certain point of view - add in the driver. a 100mph down a motorway, a bird, fox or something
    jumps out in front of you. THat can still cause an accident, speed means less control (unless your going
    straight), you hit a fox or a bird slams your windscreen and there is a chance your taking a flip into
    the concrete
    [Ignore the crappy aeroplane analogy]

    Yes but the bird/fox jumping out onto the road would be the sole cause of the accident, not the actual speed. Speed is just an aggravating factor to the accident, it didn't cause the actual accident.

    And to be realistic, doing 100mph on the motorway isn't much different from doing 70mph lol.

    And like I said previously, speed in itself doesn't kill, inappropriate use of speed however, does!
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    Thanks for making me laugh.Speeding anywhere, at anytime, is dangerous and irresponsible because no-one ever knows what might happen. Just because speeding on quiet roads hardly ever kills anyone, doesn't mean it won't. Whatever your abilities (unless your ability involves predicting the future), speeding can kill.
    The problem with statements like that is the progressive lowering of speed limits in all kinds of unnecessary places. Unfortunately, the guidelines for setting speed limits used to rely on drivers recognising speed limits as reasonable, as the roads couldn't be extensively supervised. Since the introduction of speed cameras that statement has been removed from the guidelines and now speed limits are not necessarily appropriate, and are not recognised as appropriate by a lot of drivers. As an example, there's a road near me which has a section with one house at the end of a long drive, leading to a large roundabout. That section used to be a 60 limit, now it's a 30 - there's no reason for it to be that low, and there haven't been any accidents there, but someone's decided the limit needs to be halved. It's already a tedious stretch of road to drive, and when people see no reason for the low limit they speed up. Drive a country road and you'll see speed limits well before you actually get to the village, because it's expected that drivers won't slow immediately and so speeding is tacitly accepted at the ends of the zone. Then there's the fact that a lot of speed limits are set by arbitrary policy rather than consideration of the actual circumstances (for example, all villages, bar one that fought it, in Suffolk have 30 limits) and to say that breaking any speed limit is automatically dangerous just doesn't stack up.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ice Constricter)
    There you go, you your very self are implying that speed in itself doesn't kill, just aggravates the accident if it were to take place, also the speed itself doesn't cause the accident, there's always another factor (such as having a heart attack at the wheel like you just mentioned).



    [Ignore my dumb aeroplane analogy]

    Based on this part do you then agree that 'speed kills'. Because by saying that you're basically saying speed without being coupled with any other factor is capable of killing you. Cause if you think that then why do more accidents occur in 30mph roads?
    Of course there needs to be a collision for someone to be killed, but if the car's travelling slowly it's less likely to be fatal and less like;ly to happen in the first place. How many times am I, and others, going to be asked to repeat this? Speed can be the difference between life and death.

    There are more accidents on 30mph roads because there are typically more things to crash into, but you get accidents like pile-ups on faster roads.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    Of course there needs to be a collision for someone to be killed, but if the car's travelling slowly it's less likely to be fatal and less like;ly to happen in the first place. How many times am I, and others, going to be asked to repeat this? Speed can be the difference between life and death.

    There are more accidents on 30mph roads because there are typically more things to crash into, but you get accidents like pile-ups on faster roads.
    So what is your suggestion for speed limits?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    Of course there needs to be a collision for someone to be killed, but if the car's travelling slowly it's less likely to be fatal and less like;ly to happen in the first place. How many times am I, and others, going to be asked to repeat this? Speed can be the difference between life and death.There are more accidents on 30mph roads because there are typically more things to crash into, but you get accidents like pile-ups on faster roads.
    By allowing cars on the road it is accepted that there is a certain risk. We could reduce road accidents to near zero if the speed limit was 5mph and you had a bloke with a red flag walking in front of the car, but the downsides of such a move outweigh the benefits. Speed limits need to be reasonable - reduce risks to an acceptable level without unnecessarily inconveniencing the motorist.Road safety strategy is very often focussed on getting figures to look better rather than actually improving safety. That often means 'improvements' are made in areas which have had an unusual number of incidents - just chance - and where the numbers would almost certainly have dropped anyway (regression to mean).
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grey_Fox)
    So what is your suggestion for speed limits?
    I was dragged into a discussion/argument about speed limits I think because I inadvertantly used the word "speeding" instead of "driving quickly". Although I get why it's relevant.

    I'm not an expert or 'motoring enthusiast'. I'll leave it to people who are much smarter than I am. All I know is that however high the limit is, there will still be people that complain it's too slow.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    Of course there needs to be a collision for someone to be killed, but if the car's travelling slowly it's less likely to be fatal and less likely to happen in the first place. How many times am I, and others, going to be asked to repeat this? Speed can be the difference between life and death.
    You keep continuously missing the point.
    Obviously it doesn't take a genius to work out that the faster you're travelling, the more serious an accident would be IF IT WERE TO OCCUR! All I'm saying is that speeding can be safe in the right circumstances and that in itself isn't so dangerous.

    The inappropriate use of it is though. The inappropriate use of speed can also be an aggravating factor to many types of accidents including; driver distractions, driver error, bad weather and drunk/drug driving etc.

    And your speed can be the difference between life and death you say?
    Well no **** sherlock! Why not just drive everywhere at 5mph? It'll prevent 100% of fatal accidents from ever occuring. But of course we can't do that. There has to be a balance between making adequate progress and implementing safety.

    There are more accidents on 30mph roads because there are typically more things to crash into, but you get accidents like pile-ups on faster roads.
    In other words, way WAY WAY more causes of accidents are present on 30mph roads. And amazingly, many of them have nothing to do with speed. :eek: :rolleyes:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    By allowing cars on the road it is accepted that there is a certain risk. We could reduce road accidents to near zero if the speed limit was 5mph and you had a bloke with a red flag walking in front of the car, but the downsides of such a move outweigh the benefits. Speed limits need to be reasonable - reduce risks to an acceptable level without unnecessarily inconveniencing the motorist.Road safety strategy is very often focussed on getting figures to look better rather than actually improving safety. That often means 'improvements' are made in areas which have had an unusual number of incidents - just chance - and where the numbers would almost certainly have dropped anyway (regression to mean).
    Agree 100%. Apart from the 'just chance' bit.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    Agree 100%. Apart from the 'just chance' bit.
    The "just chance" bit isn't something you can disagree with, it's just a statement of fact. He's saying that they're just random incidents that occurred on that road, which may even have had nothing to do with driving.

    For example there's the story of the council that lowered the speed limit on a road, and put speed cameras in because there were 3 fatalities on the road the previous year. Turns out they were three suicides where people threw themselves off bridges. Those are the "just chance" incidents that occur one year, but not the other, and have nothing at all to do with the actual safety of driving along the road.

    Does that make sense? (That's a genuine question by the way, as I'd like you to understand the point, and not for me to sound like I'm just trying to keep going on at you.)
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    Agree 100%. Apart from the 'just chance' bit.
    How about an example? One of my parents' friends is on the parish council for the town down the road. The county council wanted to put traffic calming in down the High Street as there had been an unusual spate of accidents. The county council were very reluctant to provide details of the incidents (the residents weren't aware of anything unusual!) but eventually did - I can't remember the exact details, but one of the accidents wasn't actually on the High Street, one was a woman walking out without looking from between two parked cars, and something like 3 were parking scrapes or something else minor. Speed was not a factor in any of the incidents, so traffic calming would not have achieved a reduction by itself, but since then there have been no more incidents. If the traffic calming had been introduced the implication would have been that the fall in accidents was due to the changes, when it clearly wouldn't have been - the spate of accidents was 'just chance' (well, and inaccuracy!).Out of interest, if you agree, do you agree that not all speed limits are reasonable?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ice Constricter)
    You keep continuously missing the point.
    Obviously it doesn't take a genius to work out that the faster you're travelling, the more serious an accident would be IF IT WERE TO OCCUR! All I'm saying is that speeding can be safe in the right circumstances and that in itself isn't so dangerous.

    The inappropriate use of it is though. The inappropriate use of speed can also be an aggravating factor to many types of accidents including; driver distractions, driver error, bad weather and drunk/drug driving etc.

    And your speed can be the difference between life and death you say?
    Well no **** sherlock! Why not just drive everywhere at 5mph? It'll prevent 100% of fatal accidents from ever occuring. But of course we can't do that. There has to be a balance between making adequate progress and implementing safety.



    In other words, way WAY WAY more causes of accidents are present on 30mph roads. And amazingly, many of them have nothing to do with speed. :eek: :rolleyes:

    Yeah, I was trying to make a point. Nothing on it's own will cause an accident - including speed. But that would make the whole thread moot. Er... does driving fast or the inability to drive properly kill people? The former isn't really an option.

    So I interpreted it as (and I thought everyone else would): can speed kill people baring in mind all of the events that are out of our control, or does merely the inability to use speed properly kill people? As we cannot anticipate everything, I concluded that speed kills.

    In regards to 30mph roads, there is a reason people drive more slowly. If someone drives 100mph around a housing estate they are more likely to crash than at 30mph, whatever their ability. People generally keep to the limits because they know speed kills.

    'Ability' is just a concept. Random things can happen which blunt the effects of ability, it cannot be relied on. In these cases, the speed you're travelling at makes the difference. So speed can kill.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan1909)
    The "just chance" bit isn't something you can disagree with, it's just a statement of fact. He's saying that they're just random incidents that occurred on that road, which may even have had nothing to do with driving.

    For example there's the story of the council that lowered the speed limit on a road, and put speed cameras in because there were 3 fatalities on the road the previous year. Turns out they were three suicides where people threw themselves off bridges. Those are the "just chance" incidents that occur one year, but not the other, and have nothing at all to do with the actual safety of driving along the road.

    Does that make sense? (That's a genuine question by the way, as I'd like you to understand the point, and not for me to sound like I'm just trying to keep going on at you.)
    Okay. I'll try to believe that you're being genuine.

    I'm not stupid, or obtuse, or deluded, but apparently I don't make myself very clear.

    I know some (if not most) of the figures are down to chance, but it'd be a stretch to claim they all are. It just sounded a bit like someone trying to twist the stats for their own means. If I'm wrong I take what I posted back!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by besomebody)
    I'm not an expert or 'motoring enthusiast'. I'll leave it to people who are much smarter than I am. All I know is that however high the limit is, there will still be people that complain it's too slow.
    And there will probably always be people that think it's too high. There is no zero risk in any activity, a certain pragmatism has to be adopted or we'd never move out of bed. Best we can do is mitigate it.

    'Chance' events are extremely rare in comparison to events that could have been prevented. Police used to attend Road Traffic Accidents, but there was a recognition that 'accident' implies chance causality, whereas in fact there were many causes that were preventable. Now police go to Road Traffic Incidents.

    'Chance' accidents don't include suicides off bridges, that's called massaging the figures, something councils, police authorities, and Camera Partnerships are past masters at. There are a fair few cameras put in places that aren't accident black-spots but are 'higher speed' stretches of road. This generates funds, increases convictions, reduces speeds and is a good PR panacea, but they don't reduce deaths or accidents. This sort of cynical use of speeding legislation does nothing to persuade the driver towards thinking there is a true rationale behind the imposition of limits and by extension their enforcement by cameras.

    But I've drifted...

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 14, 2012
New on TSR

Your favourite film of the year?

For you personally what has been the best 2014 movie

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.