Although that is true if you are going an extra 5MPH then during the time it takes to perceive the danger and start applying the breaks then you would have traveled closer to the danger and then have less distance to do the braking. And the energy of the vehicle is quadratic in the velocity so an extra 5MPH adds much more energy that needs to dissipate so even if the cumulative breaking forces are higher they have more momentum to reduce in less time.
Does speed kill?
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
Although that is true if you are going an extra 5MPH then during the time it takes to perceive the danger and start applying the breaks then you would have traveled closer to the danger and then have less distance to do the braking. And the energy of the vehicle is quadratic in the velocity so an extra 5MPH adds much more energy that needs to dissipate so even if the cumulative breaking forces are higher they have more momentum to reduce in less time.
None of this is truly relevant. The argument that higher speed is more dangerous means little... just that 20mph is more dangerous than 5mph. So should we all drive at 5mph? Obviously not.
How arbitrary are our speed limits? We've all seen long, straight stretches with a 40 limit. And all asked ourselves why... Sometimes it's just the local council or homeowners association have petitioned for a lower limit (than necessary).
Also from my speed awareness course... less than 5% of all accidents occur on dual carriageways and motorways. These are the roads with the highest speed limits. Most accidents occur in towns and city centres, the places with the lowest limits.
So why are we limited to 70mph on motorways, the safest roads in the UK? And let's face it, most of us are doing 80-90 on these roads anyhow, and still they are the safest places to be in a car...
^^ i never said the peed limits just make sense, just at higher speed the stopping distance is much larger, which is just a fact.
I agree speed limits are arbitrary and outdated but there needs to be limits and it is simpler to have nationalized limits rather than varying speeds for every stretch of road.
70MPH is too slow for motorways with modern cars under good driving conditions, which is why every speeds abut the police don't really care too much. But if you raise the speed limit to be say 85MPH then people will drive 95-100MPH which is getting too high. Could we get extra policing and speed limits make an 85 limit strictly enforced?
One of the big issues I see which is not addressed in the UK but is to some extent in Europe is weather dependent speed limits. In France many roads have an 85MPH limit in the dry but that drops to 55MPH in the wet and in foggy areas have 45MPH limits.
And that is a big issue if we raise limits, doing 85MPh on a wet motorway in the UK is just not appropriate.
The other factors are things like fuel consumption and emissions tend to sky rocket with speeds over 70MPH.
PS; i speed all the time but try to factor in road conditions, traffic and personal tiredness. I think it is much more dangerous for people to be driving when tired than going over the arbitrary limit on freeways.
Also going 80 instead of 70MPH doesn't save much time on your average trip. I do this all the time but then realize I have maybe saved 10 minutes by breaking the law for the last 90 minutes and paid an extra buck or 2 in gas for the benefit. One could simply leave 10 minutes earlier or not stop for that pee break!
I agree speed limits are arbitrary and outdated but there needs to be limits and it is simpler to have nationalized limits rather than varying speeds for every stretch of road.
70MPH is too slow for motorways with modern cars under good driving conditions, which is why every speeds abut the police don't really care too much. But if you raise the speed limit to be say 85MPH then people will drive 95-100MPH which is getting too high. Could we get extra policing and speed limits make an 85 limit strictly enforced?
One of the big issues I see which is not addressed in the UK but is to some extent in Europe is weather dependent speed limits. In France many roads have an 85MPH limit in the dry but that drops to 55MPH in the wet and in foggy areas have 45MPH limits.
And that is a big issue if we raise limits, doing 85MPh on a wet motorway in the UK is just not appropriate.
The other factors are things like fuel consumption and emissions tend to sky rocket with speeds over 70MPH.
PS; i speed all the time but try to factor in road conditions, traffic and personal tiredness. I think it is much more dangerous for people to be driving when tired than going over the arbitrary limit on freeways.
Also going 80 instead of 70MPH doesn't save much time on your average trip. I do this all the time but then realize I have maybe saved 10 minutes by breaking the law for the last 90 minutes and paid an extra buck or 2 in gas for the benefit. One could simply leave 10 minutes earlier or not stop for that pee break!
See post #9.
The thing is though, statistics for everywhere are bound to cover the majority of accidents which will be relatively minor things such as bumps and scrapes.
While those might greatly outnumber the number of incidents on Motorways, you can't dismiss the fact that there are for more fatalities on fast roads.
Citation needed.
Just going by what the Motorway Cops say on the BBC show. I don't have figures, but they are the people who deal with that kind of thing day in and out.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 1,531
Does speed kill? Well most of the time when police make a statement it is along the lines of "Speed was a factor".
A 'factor' is not the cause, it is just something which contributed to the accident. The video the OP posted makes a lot of sense.
A 'factor' is not the cause, it is just something which contributed to the accident. The video the OP posted makes a lot of sense.
I hate it when reports say "speed was a contributing factor" or such like.
Surely speed will always be a factor in an RTC. If there was no speed involved then we'd not be moving.
Hence saying "speed was a factor" will always be true, no matter if it was excessive or not. It's such a contrived statement.
Surely speed will always be a factor in an RTC. If there was no speed involved then we'd not be moving.
Hence saying "speed was a factor" will always be true, no matter if it was excessive or not. It's such a contrived statement.
Speed means less time to anticipate and correct a mistake, surely this is logical?
Although pointless speed limits encourage speeding in all but the senile, so I'd support the links point about lowering them, can't argue with his statistics.
I guess changing people's attitudes about speeding is not going to work and neither does trying to enforce them, it just annoys people.
Although pointless speed limits encourage speeding in all but the senile, so I'd support the links point about lowering them, can't argue with his statistics.
I guess changing people's attitudes about speeding is not going to work and neither does trying to enforce them, it just annoys people.
It's like you're deliberately trying to give me a headache.
40's are usually nationals going through an area of junction with history of crashes, and 30 is not arbitrary it's chosen as it gives reasonable speed and significantly higher chance of pedestrian survival which is the main risk in 30mph areas. (about 80 percent)
which doesn't really mean much as as i said its the last few meters where most speed is lost (air resistance isnt really much of a factor at that point) the problem being those last 5 meters for a 35 vs 30 mph car are inside whatever you're going to hit so you hit at a disproportionately higher speed.
but most government initiatives are to reduce fatalities because they're expensive. in which case speed while it may not be a cause of the accident is likely to be a cause of a crash being fatal.
hence why bikers get disproportional targeted, because we tend to die which is expensive.
the idea of most government programs is not to reduce crashes, but to reduce fatalities.
I know the 30 limit itself is not arbitrary. I always stick to 30 in urban areas. Those are not the problem.
But we've all seen long, straight roads with 50 (or even 40!) limits, and that 60 is pretty slow for modern, well surfaced roads.
As for motorways, there is no way in hell 70 should be the limit. It's like we're stuck in the 1960s.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Speed x mass x stupidity.
If instead of putting 20mph signs everywhere we put 'No Jay walking' signs up and fined these dang school children for stepping out in front of a car or bus then we'd all be better off.