Thoughts on Excessive Speed

[Housey]

I've always thought the safest speed is the speed that requires the least amount of interactions with other cars ie go with the flow

Speed is rarely a cause, it is a fatuous debate really. Remove the driver there would be no speed, so the driver is the cause, or the machine breaking or inappropriate speed as the hands of said driver. THAT is your cause.

Loads of deaths possible at 70mph or below, we see them sadly everyday and we lots of deaths where speed was legal. Speed, it might be argued, adds to the risk of the results of an accident being worse for those involved, but that is a dead end debate that removes the reality of transportation and the need to move people around the globe at 100's of miles per hour. We can't make life 100% safe, the world does not work that way. We have speed limits in the UK to add an element of control, but 56mph will still wipe you out if you are in the mini 1000 the lorry drives into. Put a better lorry driver in and your problem is removed by and large for that is usually the point of failure.

Speed can be dangerous in the same way as a tank in the hands of 5 year old but limited to 20 mph can wipe out a brass band. Sure, if the tank wasn't allowed to move it would be safe, but it could move at 50mph with a tank driver in it quite safely.

Speed kills is the mantra of the soundbite nation.

 

[Nasher]

Unlikely to be using brakes on the motorway - particularly in an EV, and while you might have a point with tyres, I'm not sure how much of a difference rolling freely at a slightly lower speed would make, compared to the wear during acceleration/deceleration.

Neither of those actually apply in this case either, as the limits are in force to reduce NO2



I see many people wearing over ear headphones whilst driving these days - a lot of which now have ANC - it doesn't really surprise me that they can't hear anything

It will drain the battery quicker and that energy comes from somewhere. Probably from burning gas...

Also they still make just as much road noise, which is also considered an emission. Especially the larger ones, they make a lot of it due to the weight.

 

[Thekwango]

You are transfixed on the debate you want to have.

If speed is the key issue in safety, what is your view on air travel with their crazy 500+ mph cruising speeds.

Yea, I personally am only discussing the speed thing in relation to the outcome should a crash occur.
And no I don’t have a view on planes flying at 500mph or whatever it is - we’re discussing cars, driving on public highways not planes.

So you actually want to be accepted as right on this point, that is your only point in this debate?

Each 1mph adds to the risk factor or death, that's your debate?

Yup, that’s it. I’ve been countering those who repeatedly post trying to claim speed and luck aren’t really factors in a road fatality when both clearly are.

 

[DRZ]

ive said multiple times my argument isn't that we drive a 2mph. and i'm not making an argument. i'm stating a fact, the speed the car is travelling at when an accident occurs (even if speed isn't a factor in causing the actual accident) will almost always have a direct effect on the seriousness of the any injuries.

The reason stating a fact is the same thing as making an argument is that we're having a discussion/debate and it is completely normal to draw inference from the presentation of facts. It is a fact that if you're catapulted into a wall at 0.5mph you'll likely be fine but at 1000mph you'll be an unrecognisable paste. Why is that relevant to anything? Because you're saying that the outcome is worse. So, by inference, what should we do about it? Go slower, perhaps (based on the theme of your posts thus far).

My response to that is to ask you at what speed you'd prefer everyone travel at to mitigate the risks you describe. You're not answering the question... I'll ask again: Do you believe there is a speed that we should not exceed to explicitly prevent any chance of any fatalities on the roads?

 

[Zeebedy]

You are transfixed on the debate you want to have.

If speed is the key issue in safety, what is your view on air travel with their crazy 500+ mph cruising speeds.

tbf housey, there are less cars, roundabouts, lights etc.. in the air than on the ground.

 

[Housey]

tbf housey, there are less cars, roundabouts, lights etc.. in the air than on the ground.

So speed is not a relevant factor then.

 

[Thekwango]

My response to that is to ask you at what speed you'd prefer everyone travel at to mitigate the risks you describe. You're not answering the question... I'll ask again: Do you believe there is a speed that we should not exceed to explicitly prevent any chance of any fatalities on the roads?

i've already answered it i think, though it may well be buried in among another post. the speed i'd suggest we try and not exceed is the one set out in the speed limits. driving to the speed limits won't necessrily stop people dying on the roads, we're likely never going to achieve that,certainly not within my lifetime.
but there needs to a limit and as it stands that's the one i'd suggest people stick to.

my posts, despite what you may think aren't to demand people stop speeding, i don't think you'll find anywhere i've said that, all i've done is repeatedly highlight that driving faster = higher risk of fatality should a crash occur as there seems to be people in here that either don't want to or can't accept that. that's it, nothing more. it's not a i hate people driving fast, it's not coming from a 'high horse' position (i've 3 points currently set to expire soon for speeding) i'm simply pointing out what i figured would be obvious to most but seems some are oblivious to it. much in the same way i've replied to other posters claiming luck isn't a factor in crashes or fatalities.

 

[DRZ]

i've already answered it i think, though it may well be buried in among another post. the speed i'd suggest we try and not exceed is the one set out in the speed limits. driving to the speed limits won't necessrily stop people dying on the roads, we're likely never going to achieve that,certainly not within my lifetime.
but there needs to a limit and as it stands that's the one i'd suggest people stick to.

my posts, despite what you may think aren't to demand people stop speeding, i don't think you'll find anywhere i've said that, all i've done is repeatedly highlight that driving faster = higher risk of fatality should a crash occur as there seems to be people in here that either don't want to or can't accept that. that's it, nothing more. it's not a i hate people driving fast, it's not coming from a 'high horse' position (i've 3 points currently set to expire soon for speeding) i'm simply pointing out what i figured would be obvious to most but seems some are oblivious to it. much in the same way i've replied to other posters claiming luck isn't a factor in crashes or fatalities.

Thanks for a direct answer. Unfortunately, my view is that 20 in a 20 is outrageously dangerous if the road is covered in ice, or passes a school at kicking out time, or a dozen other examples.

If you can accept that the number on the sign is NOT an arbiter of safety, then you're halfway there. The next step is to understand that if it is possible for it to be extremely dangerous to travel at the speed limit in some circumstances, in other circumstances it is possible for that speed limit to be exceeded by an amount which doesn't significantly compromise safety. Rarely if ever is the speed limit a number at which travelling along the road is universally safe, nor exceeding it universally dangerous.

There is always a speed which is excessive for the prevailing conditions. Which is the entire point.

 

[Thekwango]

Unfortunately, my view is that 20 in a 20 is outrageously dangerous if the road is covered in ice, or passes a school at kicking out time, or a dozen other examples.

wholeheartedly agree. again i don't think i've said otherwise.

If you can accept that the number on the sign is NOT an arbiter of safety, then you're halfway there. The next step is to understand that if it is possible for it to be extremely dangerous to travel at the speed limit in some circumstances, in other circumstances it is possible for that speed limit to be exceeded by an amount which doesn't significantly compromise safety. Rarely if ever is the speed limit a number at which travelling along the road is universally safe, nor exceeding it universally dangerous.

again, wholeheartedly agree. the point i keep making is when someone says speed isn't a major factor in the outcome or seriousness of a crash i will say they are wrong. same as when someone tries to claim luck isn't a part of it i will disgree with that too. that's my entire point.

 

[Thekwango]

So speed is not a relevant factor then.

do you really believe speed isn't a relavant factor in the outcome of a crash? do you really believe speed doesn't play a relevant factor in causing crashes? and you don't need to telling about all the other relevant factors, i'm aware of them. but you seem to be constantly dismissing speed as a relevant factor - unless i am taking you up wrong (apologies if that is the case)

 

[Dis86]

I enjoy the danger.
I don't write so clear but in short if for whatever reason I've not been able to set of earlier but it is possible to get to my destination within daylight, I will drive faster as long as I feel its safe, night driving takes more concentration and is more tiring to me than driving fast during daytime, anyway whatever I am doing cannot be that dangerous, I am still alive and accident free, also free from points too.

Tell that to the guy who just ended up spread all over a bridge. He probably thought the same.

 

[DRZ]

do you really believe speed isn't a relavant factor in the outcome of a crash? do you really believe speed doesn't play a relevant factor in causing crashes? and you don't need to telling about all the other relevant factors, i'm aware of them. but you seem to be constantly dismissing speed as a relevant factor - unless i am taking you up wrong (apologies if that is the case)

Can we reframe this? If you crash at Speed X, the consequences might be worse than at Speed X - 10%. So what do you do with that knowledge?

 

[Thekwango]

Can we reframe this? If you crash at Speed X, the consequences might be worse than at Speed X - 10%. So what do you do with that knowledge?

nothing, because i already have that knowledge. it would appear serveral people in here don't. hopefully they will and what they do with it is up to them. maybe it'll make them better drivers by convincing them to slow down a little bit when required. who knows.

 

[Housey]

do you really believe speed isn't a relavant factor in the outcome of a crash? do you really believe speed doesn't play a relevant factor in causing crashes? and you don't need to telling about all the other relevant factors, i'm aware of them. but you seem to be constantly dismissing speed as a relevant factor - unless i am taking you up wrong (apologies if that is the case)

So now you want to move from impact to cause? I think we all know that, but took a bit of time for you to get there...

It's a fatuous debate. Fixing the cause is likely to yield far far better results than speculating on the impact of each mph on the result. Speed is used in many debates like this for causation when it hardly ever is. We can agree that hitting a wall at 100mph is going to hurt more than at 10mph. Anyone debating that (I see no one doing that to be clear, though I have not read all the posts) is crazy. So we can agree faster you go the harder the hit when you get it wrong or the car breaks. But that does not talk to cause....

My point about aircraft was to test the debate you want to have. The response came "tbf housey, there are less cars, roundabouts, lights etc.. in the air than on the ground." from Mr Z, which is the response I wanted to illicit. Speed isn't an issue, simply reduce the cars, roundabouts and lights, which talks to other factors. Far higher levels of training, far more redundant systems but facts are you get it wrong in a plane with height and speed your outcome is less likely to be good.

It is, one could argue, a straw man in this deabte. You want to debate a speculative but don't have a fix to the problem, you just want to get people to say, simply "if you carried less speed less people would die" but then go on to say you are not seeking to criticise speeding.

My argument is that terrible driving is a far bigger risk to death than speeding. Add both together and you have a huge risk factor but fix the first one the second one is likely to far far less of an issue, within reason. My car did 180mph easily on a race track, never felt hard work but I eaed off as I came to the pit exit as I did not know the skill of the people exiting the pits, how they would use their mirrors so I removed that risk. Good drivers do that....

If I had a blow out at this speed it would have been immense, but I didnt'
If I had a heard attack at this speed....but I didn't
If I had rapidly tried to turn left at this speed....but I didn't

I took my car to 185mph in as close to a controlled manner as I could, legally but never safely. That is called living your life.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Thanks for a direct answer. Unfortunately, my view is that 20 in a 20 is outrageously dangerous if the road is covered in ice, or passes a school at kicking out time, or a dozen other examples.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you... but to play devils advocate i guess my driving instructor some 30 years ago would argue along the lines of .. 20 is the speed limit, the maximum speed you can do, but depending on the conditions may not be the speed you should do.

ie its a limit not a target

 

[DRZ]

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you... but to play devils advocate i guess my driving instructor some 30 years ago would argue along the lines of .. 20 is the speed limit, the maximum speed you can do, but depending on the conditions may not be the speed you should do.

ie its a limit not a target

From a legal perspective he's quite right, but not necessarily right from a safety one. Wales have just implemented a pretty much blanket 20mph limit over many towns/villages with absolutely no road-specific evidence at all. 30mph was arguably safe before on the vast majority of those roads, now it is 50% over the speed limit and so dangerous your licence could be taken off you for a month should you be observed doing so.

 

[Housey]

This shows the true danger of speed to be fair.

 

[Thekwango]

So now you want to move from impact to cause? I think we all know that, but took a bit of time for you to get there...

no i don't, i was just asking you a question as i seem to get the impression you don't believe speed is a factor in either. apologies if adding that question in threw you a bit.

 

[Housey]

you don't believe speed is a factor in either....

We can agree that hitting a wall at 100mph is going to hurt more than at 10mph. Anyone debating that (I see no one doing that to be clear, though I have not read all the posts) is crazy. So we can agree faster you go the harder the hit when you get it wrong or the car breaks.

But please, carry on, tell me what else I am not doing.

 

[Diddums]

Anyone saying "drive to the conditions" is an idiot. Even on the clearest day, smoothest asphalt, with the most fastidiously maintained vehicle, a million things can go wrong, and this is not even factoring driver skill. I've seen loads of people I wouldn't trust to drive at 10mph let alone 150mph on an autobahn, regardless of the conditions.