Relationship between speed and safety

[jont]

I'd actually be as bold as to say that anyone who cannot understand such basic reasoning really isn't fit to drive.

Do you live in a bungalow, or do you risk having to use stairs everyday?

[akirk]

Having read the responses to this post, I agree with MGF's sentiment that in the non-ideal world we live in, slower must mean safer.

I'd actually be as bold as to say that anyone who cannot understand such basic reasoning really isn't fit to drive.

The fact that YOU may be an advanced driver and feel safe and comfortable driving at higher speeds doesn't change the fact that for the general masses, accidents can happen, and when they do, the consequences are more severe is the vehicles involved are travelling faster. Simple.

it is always fascinating to see logic presented out of the context of reality - the proponent argues - this is logical therefore we must do it and only allows discussion around the simplicity of that logic, not the complexity of reality so anyone who disagrees is put down: "really isn't fit to drive"

yes of course we all know and accept the basic logic that in an accident a slower speed can mean lesser consequences...
but to derive from that:
- slower must mean safer
- we should all drive slower
fails on a number of accounts...

we can easily find logic to show that slower must mean safer is not always true, e.g. crossing a railway line with a train coming - lets do it at 40mph - big gap, 30mph - oops a bit tight, 20mph - wow that train is big, 10mph - crash

so at a logical level we can state with clarity that 'slower must mean safer' is not always true...
as soon as you accept that you accept that you can only understand that statement in the context of reality / the situation... and instantly you have a more intelligent approach to driving and understanding speed - in fact I would argue that anyone who cannot understand such basic reasoning really isn't fit to drive

now that we have that understanding we must logically see speed as one of many factors in driving and one of many factors in an accident and one of many factors in the consequences of an accident...

we all know that it is possible to drive a car at over 200mph and not instantly die, in fact it is rumoured you might be able to travel faster than that and still live! Therefore speed does not kill...

equally we all know that going around a corner which is safe at no more than 40mph, but driving at 120 might be painful - which means that there are occasions where speed is an influencing factor in an accident...

so we can simply conclude that inappropriate speed is an issue - and I am sure that we would all agree with that - however much bravado a driver might have there is an inner acceptance that at some point going faster might hurt...

however, while qualifying the relevance of speed, if we are to explore the relationship with safety we must also understand what else can affect safety, and what we mean by it - if for the moment we see safety as a measure of severity of injuries to self and others then we need to explore all the influencing factors... eg:

- if you hop into a zorb (inflatable bubble) and roll down a hill at 20mph you could probably run over a small cat without squashing it, and in hitting a wall may not suffer too badly
- now do the same sequence of actions in a classic mini / a modern mini / a 7.5 tonne truck... fortunately said small cat can only die once, but I am sure that we accept that as we change the vehicle so the consequences to ourselves inside / the cat outside will change - so vehicle choice is an influencing factor in safety - and NCAP ratings make that quite clear...

similarly
- wearing of a seatbelt or not
- the conditions of your tyres
- the mechanical condition of your car
- your levels of agression / caffine / drugs / alcohol / etc. etc.

all of these and many more are factors in an accident - speed is only one of many many factors - yes, if speed was zero an accident might not happen, but lets get real, the world can't operate without people / things moving around...

so for anyone who thinks that driving is as simple as slower = safer, please warn me first - I would prefer to go off somewhere at high speed with a decent AD than at a low speed with you as driver

Alasdair

[Horse]

we can easily find logic to show that slower must mean safer is not always true, e.g. crossing a railway line with a train coming - lets do it at 40mph - big gap, 30mph - oops a bit tight, 20mph - wow that train is big, 10mph - crash

At 10mph approach speed, you would have had far more time (roughly 4x ) than at 40mph to have a good check that it's clear before doing something as stupid as going over train tracks without being certain that you'd get off the other side in one piece . . .

[Carbon Based]

Absent a desire by the public to improve driving standards the authorities are left with little option other than to slow everything down.

That responsibility is pretty evenly shared, IMHO.

The general public think their driving is just fine - and for the most part it is, otherwise we'd have lot fewer cars on the road.

Government wants to be seen to be doing something to reduce KSI. However, they don't want to upset voters by suggesting that those accidents that do occur were caused by one or more individual's decisions.

So both parties have resigned themselves to the idea that accidents just happen.

It is also much easier to measure, and so enforce, speed relative to a simple limit than any variation of driving that might have been improved by training.

[akirk]

we can easily find logic to show that slower must mean safer is not always true, e.g. crossing a railway line with a train coming - lets do it at 40mph - big gap, 30mph - oops a bit tight, 20mph - wow that train is big, 10mph - crash

At 10mph approach speed, you would have had far more time (roughly 4x ) than at 40mph to have a good check that it's clear before doing something as stupid as going over train tracks without being certain that you'd get off the other side in one piece . . .

I am not sure whether stupidity was factored in
but you are right - perhaps we should change it all to less stupidity = greater safety!

Alasdair

[petes]

I know I started this post, but 5 weeks later, surely it's been discussed to death.

I get the impression this forum needs an injection of life into it.

[WhoseGeneration]

I get the impression this forum needs an injection of life into it.

You'd be right but, as so often discussed here, any interest by most in driving compentently is of no concern to that most.
Despite the fact that if all drove competently, there'd be no need for any speed limits.

[Gareth]

I get the impression this forum needs an injection of life into it.

I'd thought that most posters have a life away from the forum, (for me, it's when I'm driving), and the forum is being used to fill in the boring bits.

[petes]

Has anyone every suggested tapping into social networking as a way of boosting this site's activity?

Most people browse their Facebook and Twitter feeds on a daily basis so if new forums posts appeared there as well, it would probably stimulate a bit more fresh conversation.

[Gareth]

Has anyone every suggested tapping into social networking as a way of boosting this site's activity?

Might be a nice idea - could it be automated? Extra work for the site owner, keeping any automation in step when various social media sites change their behaviour. Since it's his own money and time, I'm not sure he'd want any extra headaches. Many posts aren't all that interesting so it might need to be a manual process, how else could it work?

It's interesting to consider how many people contribute to these fora versus how many are readers only. Currently there are 2073 members, that being the pool of potential posters, but it's hard to know how many more read the fora but aren't registered.

Of the current members, a fair number may have stopped visiting. I'd estimate perhaps 100-200 members are reasonably active contributors. More would be needed to increase 'activity'.

[jont]

Of the current members, a fair number may have stopped visiting. I'd estimate perhaps 100-200 members are reasonably active contributors. More would be needed to increase 'activity'.

/getting well off topic here.

I think we've had similar discussions in the past, and observed that more active forums tend to have a very poor signal to noise ratio (basically "drivel" lists). ADUK generally stays fairly focussed, and there possibly aren't /that/ many discussions to have. Look how often the same questions come up on here time and again!

[Gareth]

Look how often the same questions come up on here time and again!

I find myself starting to add a comment, only to realise it wasn't all that long since I said the broadly the same thing. When I check, it's sometimes as little as six months and, worse, sometimes in the same thread!

[petes]

Has anyone every suggested tapping into social networking as a way of boosting this site's activity?

Might be a nice idea - could it be automated? Extra work for the site owner, keeping any automation in step when various social media sites change their behaviour. Since it's his own money and time, I'm not sure he'd want any extra headaches. Many posts aren't all that interesting so it might need to be a manual process, how else could it work?

It's interesting to consider how many people contribute to these fora versus how many are readers only. Currently there are 2073 members, that being the pool of potential posters, but it's hard to know how many more read the fora but aren't registered.

Of the current members, a fair number may have stopped visiting. I'd estimate perhaps 100-200 members are reasonably active contributors. More would be needed to increase 'activity'.

I didn't realise the ratio of active members to contributors was so low. Tapping into an existing social media site (probably Facebook) where all but the most hardcore dinosaurs are already members would make sense.

Posting content would be a manual process but I'd be happy to contribute to that is there's anyone here who's be interested in being a joint editor of a Facebook page. Any takers?

[akirk]

I would think carefully about how social media is used...

the likelihood is that those coming on here:
- understand AD (to whatever degree)
- generally are supportive of the concept

it wouldn't be impossible to misunderstand some of the posts on here if taken out of the wider forum context...

not sure that I would be happy to see my posts appearing all over social media without my permission... I post here because it is a defined community - I do very little posting on social media as I don't want the control over what I say etc. to be taken away from me...

I can understand that it would be nice for there to be more activity, but this forum is far from dead, there is constant discussion... if more is wanted then it is simply a matter of starting new threads / being creative with the discussion...

beyond that maybe promoting the forum on pistonheads / other car forums etc.

Alasdair

[Horse]

I know I started this post, but 5 weeks later . . .

So, in summary, slowly and safely?