Relationship between speed and safety

[jont]

When you present a councillor with a DfT document that says "inappropriately low limits don't work" and they say "any speed limit reduction is a good thing" and smacking them round the face with an NSL sign would count as assault, what can you do?

Out of interest, would you propose as a basic structure for our national speed limits? Obviously there would be exceptions but I'm assuming you would consider our basic 30/60/70mph system to be inappropriate. What starting points for each main category of road would you like to see in place?

We no longer have a basic 30/60/70 system. See countless stretched 30s, 40s, 50s, changes at county boundaries etc etc. A return to the previous 30s/60/70 would be a good start.

[akirk]

I'd agree with that. The best way forward in such circumstances is to campaign for a reinstatement of the original limit. Ignoring it merely puts us at risk of getting rozzered, then we really are the victims!

Good luck with that... when I see the dark overlord with a pair of ice skates, I'll know someone has been successful. No politician is going to do something that might increase the risk of death.

I thought the general consensus of opinion on this forum (or at least this thread) was that reducing speed does not increase safety?

no - that is to oversimplify and is symptomatic of what is so wrong so often in this debate...
people seem to like soundbites as it makes them sound authorative / right... and because it poses as a statement where to disagree would be to suggest you wish to go round killing the innocent...

but it is based on a fundamental fallacy that situations are never that simple - so no, you absolutely can't generalise in such a way - equally you can't generalise the other way either - to deny this statement does not make the opposite true - yet another common 'technique' or fallacy in this type of debate... make a statement which is obiviously wrong and then imply that the opposite must be right - nope, both can be wrong because it is not that simple...

as I posted the other day
- the same car / lots of different drivers...
- same driver / lots of different cars...
- same driver and car / lots of different scenarios
etc...

there are many many more variables at play than just speed...
e.g. I am tired today - if I drive up my local road at 80mph in a sports car, then I might have an accident... tomorrow I am refreshed, the conditions are the same, I could drive up that road at 120mph and not have an accident...

anyone who thinks that the speed debate in this country is based on logic or science has been neatly fooled - it is very political.

of course, leaving the car in the garage means you won't have a car crash - but other than that the factors influencing an accident / safety are very complex.

as I posted above - I had a pedestrian run into my car 10 years ago - had I been going faster he would have missed me - my driving at 20+mph in a 50mph zone meant that safety was actually diminished...

and there will be plenty of examples in other directions or where speed played no relevant part...

bluntly speaking, to try and create sound bites like this is dangerous - because from them policy is set and we all live with the frustrations / issues that brings...

if people were a little bit more intelligent about this debate they would admit what they know - that speed alone is not the issue - driving ability as a catch-all is much more relevant - and appropriate speed plays a role in that...

when I took the HPC course, Andy Morrison who is a fantastic driver and coach commented that the advanced driver will both driver faster and slower than the average driver... nothing to do with breaking speed limits / legality
Simply put an advanced driver will drive faster for a setting as they are more capabable (still within safety / legality) but they will also very often drive much slower as they are much more aware than the average driver and will reduce speed to compensate for a range of factors - conditions / car / road / other users / etc. etc.

if you want a sound bite it is simple in appearance and yet complex to unpack:
- Appropriate speed increases safety
and to unpack it - simply do the advanced driving training...

Alasdair

[Horse]

I had a pedestrian run into my car 10 years ago - had I been going faster he would have missed me - my driving at 20+mph in a 50mph zone meant that safety was actually diminished...

Surely, using the same 'logic', if you'd been going even slower you might have been able to stop in time?

It's undeniable that the number of hazards in a stretch of road won't reduce if you travel faster. So that means that the faster driver will encounter more hazards in any given time, will then have longer reaction distances and extended braking distances. Does that mean that faster = safer, or even = 'no more hazardous'?

[akirk]

I had a pedestrian run into my car 10 years ago - had I been going faster he would have missed me - my driving at 20+mph in a 50mph zone meant that safety was actually diminished...

Surely, using the same 'logic', if you'd been going even slower you might have been able to stop in time?

no - because that would have lengthened the time during which I covered that spot - he would simply have hit me further down the car...

as the police confirmed - only by going faster would he have missed me - and I couldn't have stopped in time as the nose of my car was already past the point where he appeared - he ran at full pelt into the side of my car... he hit me, not the other way around

Alasdair

[Gareth]

I had a pedestrian run into my car 10 years ago - had I been going faster he would have missed me - my driving at 20+mph in a 50mph zone meant that safety was actually diminished...

Surely, using the same 'logic', if you'd been going even slower you might have been able to stop in time?

Taking the words at face value, the pedestrian hit the side of his car. How would being able to stop in a shorter distance have helped?

ETA: crossover ...

[exportmanuk]

I think the whole safety debate is starting from the wrong point. As others have pointed out speed whilst being a factor is not the whole story.

Road safety starts with parents. Teach your kids to respect the road by example ( not do as I say not as I do) and they will grow up respecting the road and be more respectful drivers.

The number of parents I see parking out side schools on the no stopping zone then dragging their children out onto the road is unbelievable. They cross within yards of a controlled crossing place, pushing a pram and/or holding the hand of the child. On busy roads cross halfway and stop in a narrow chevron zone again when within 100 yards there is a controlled crossing.

I work close to one football ground and live close to the other in Manchester football fans are even worse with or without children. The cross the roads like lemmings and expect everyone else to look out for their safety.

When learning to drive there should be a minimum requirement for driving experiences.
You should have to drive on urban roads, country roads, trunk roads/ dual carriageways Night time day time rush hour adverse weather.

In Manchester you could take a weeks course in the summer and never drive on a road with a speed limit greater than 40 mph in fact in some areas that is difficult to find too.

We are not equipping people to use the roads sensibly

[Horse]

I think the whole safety debate is starting from the wrong point. As others have pointed out speed whilst being a factor is not the whole story.

Road safety starts with parents. Teach your kids to respect the road by example ( not do as I say not as I do) and they will grow up respecting the road and be more respectful drivers.

I'm going to extensively rewrite that for you:

starts with parents. Teach your kids to respect

It's not just driving, that can't exist in isolation.

To give a non-driving example: a parent overheard in the school playground, sending the 7 yr old boy into school for the day, "You do what you want, they can't do anything to you". What's that kid's driving going to be like? Would you want to meet him down a country lane?

[Horse]

Surely, using the same 'logic', if you'd been going even slower you might have been able to stop in time?

no - because that would have lengthened the time during which I covered that spot - he would simply have hit me further down the car...

as the police confirmed - only by going faster would he have missed me - and I couldn't have stopped in time as the nose of my car was already past the point where he appeared - he ran at full pelt into the side of my car... he hit me, not the other way around

So are you suggesting that if you'd been going faster it would be impossible for another pedestrian to walk into you in the same manner?


As a matter of interest, where did this pedestrian come from? With hindsight, was there no hint of either the pedestrian or a gap where one might emerge from?

[akirk]

Surely, using the same 'logic', if you'd been going even slower you might have been able to stop in time?

no - because that would have lengthened the time during which I covered that spot - he would simply have hit me further down the car...

as the police confirmed - only by going faster would he have missed me - and I couldn't have stopped in time as the nose of my car was already past the point where he appeared - he ran at full pelt into the side of my car... he hit me, not the other way around

So are you suggesting that if you'd been going faster it would be impossible for another pedestrian to walk into you in the same manner?


As a matter of interest, where did this pedestrian come from? With hindsight, was there no hint of either the pedestrian or a gap where one might emerge from?

I am not a scientist - but that was the view of the police who came out and investigated... impossible for another pedestrian - in concept of course not - in reality yes, he was the only one there, and he wouldn't have hit me...

I may have missed him - but three lanes of traffic - I was the only car in a clear right lane - both left and middle lane were c. stationary - there was no crossing / not a pedestrian area and it later turned out that he had been standing in the traffic behind two vans for a while and then went between them through a gap that didn't look big enough and into me...

in reality I doubt I could have done more to see him - and I was driving cautiously so as not to have too big a differential between my car and the stationary traffic...

anyway, point is that speed can work in a number of ways and it is not always about go slower...

Alasdair

[Horse]

As a matter of interest, where did this pedestrian come from? With hindsight, was there no hint of either the pedestrian or a gap where one might emerge from?

in reality I doubt I could have done more to see him

http://nosurprise.org.uk/2015/02/09/gaps-traps/

A variation on Stephen Halley's 'Surprise horizon'.

- and I was driving cautiously so as not to have too big a differential between my car and the stationary traffic...

AKA 'lane shear' - it's a classic place for unimaginative motorcyclists to get clobbered.

[Ancient]

I am not a scientist - but that was the view of the police who came out and investigated... impossible for another pedestrian - in concept of course not - in reality yes, he was the only one there, and he wouldn't have hit me...

I may have missed him - but three lanes of traffic - I was the only car in a clear right lane - both left and middle lane were c. stationary - there was no crossing / not a pedestrian area and it later turned out that he had been standing in the traffic behind two vans for a while and then went between them through a gap that didn't look big enough and into me...

in reality I doubt I could have done more to see him - and I was driving cautiously so as not to have too big a differential between my car and the stationary traffic...

anyway, point is that speed can work in a number of ways and it is not always about go slower...

Alasdair

I have seen and heard of questionable analysis by the police when faced with motor vehicle incidents. I understand their training is not what it was in this area. Of particular recent note is the case of Michael Mason, driven into by a car driver who could not account for why she did not see him, legally lit, in the correct place on a well lit street; since she was apparently "not speeding" this killing was just an unfortunate accident (apparently). In your case the conclusion of the police supported the view you chose to take, but the fact that it was a police conclusion gives it no weight (IMV).
Had you been traveling faster the pedestrian may have ran into you car further back, clearly the laws of physics would then have meant a greater impact which might have increased the resulting injury. Where there is a possibility that pedestrians may emerge unseen, slower is always better.

[akirk]

As I was using this as an example to show that had I been doing 50 I would have been past the scene minutes before the pedestrian moved - so clearly there would have been no issue... i.e. higher speed could have been safer...

I am not going to analyse the details to suit various inaccurate perspectives over the internet, I was there and know the situation and it was very clear at the time and looking back

to return to the point - lower speed doesn't always equal safer...

Alasdair

[petes]

As I was using this as an example to show that had I been doing 50 I would have been past the scene minutes before the pedestrian moved - so clearly there would have been no issue... i.e. higher speed could have been safer...

I am not going to analyse the details to suit various inaccurate perspectives over the internet, I was there and know the situation and it was very clear at the time and looking back

to return to the point - lower speed doesn't always equal safer...

Alasdair

Equally, had you started your journey a few seconds earlier, the incident would have been avoided. It's an issue of timing, not speed.

[akirk]

Equally, had you started your journey a few seconds earlier, the incident would have been avoided. It's an issue of timing, not speed.

exactly - the point I was making...

speed is not the only factor, and therefore we should not conclude that lowering speed = safer

and in every other accident - had the driver drunk less alcohol / not been distracted by a child in the back seat / not had a stressful day at work / not missed the tractor coming out of a field / etc. etc. - speed is only one factor in many, so to imply or state that lowering speed = safer, is too simplistic

as the above shows - had I started the journey earlier / chosen to turn left at the roundabout ahead and therefore taken a different lane / or been driving faster - it wouldn't have happened...

Alasdair

P.S. for those concerned the only injury was to a loaf of bread and a tin of tomatoes

[Silk]

to return to the point - lower speed doesn't always equal safer...

Actually, it does. If everything else is equal.