Does speed kill?

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

What a stupid question! Of course speed kills

Source 1: Killing Speed and Saving Lives, UK Dept. of Transportation, London, England. See also Limpert, Rudolph. Motor Vehicle Accident Reconstruction and Cause Analysis. Fourth Edition. Charlottesville, VA. The Michie Company, 1994, p. 663

Source 2: Vehicle Speeds and the Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions prepared by the Austrailian Federal Office of Road Safety, Report CR 146, October 1994, by McLean AJ,Anderson RW, Farmer MJB, Lee BH, Brooks CG

Newton's laws dictate that a doubling in vehicle speed results in a stopping distance four times as long and four times as much kinetic energy absorbed during an impact. Driver response times further increase stopping distances. As a result, a small increase in roadway traffic speeds results in a disproportionately large increase in pedestrian fatalities.

Source: Embarcadero Road Traffic Calming Project, Preliminary Report, Patrick Siegman Siegman & Associates, Town & Transportation Planning 260 Palo Alto AvenuePalo Alto CA 94301

For both stopping distances and the severity of crashes, speed matters. Travelling at 40 mph, the average driver who sights a pedestrian in the road 100 feet ahead will still be travelling 38 mph on impact: driving at 25 mph, the driver will have stopped before the pedestrian is struck.

Source: McLean AJ, Anderson RWG, Farmer MJB, Lee BH, Brooks CG. Vehicle Speeds and the Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions - Volume 1. Federal Office of Road Safety, Australia. See also Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines. Transportation Planning Council Committee 5P-8, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington D.C., 1997, p. 15-16.

The aim of this study by the NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit was to estimate the likely effect on pedestrian fatalities of a reduction in vehicle travelling speed. Results were based on detailed investigations of 176 fatal pedestrian collisions in the Adelaide area between 1983 and 1991. Estimates were developed for a range of speed reduction scenarios. The study found that a reduction of 5 km/h in the Adelaide area could be expected to result in a reduction of 30% of the incidence of fatal pedestrian collisions. Under this scenario 10% of collisions would have been avoided altogether. Volume I of this report contains detailed findings for each speed reduction scenario along with a description of the method used and supporting references. Volume II contains the details of all 176 cases.

In Zurich, the urban area speed limit was lowered from 60 to 50 km/h [37 to 31 mph] in 1980 in response to a reduction in the open road speed limit (following political pressure from the Green movement to reduce pollution levels from cars to save the forests). In the year after the change in the urban speed limit there was a reduction of 16 percent in pedestrian accidents and a reduction of 25 percent in pedestrian fatalities (Walz et al, 1983). (The authors of this study observed that, because of those who "don't believe in the influence of driving speed on impact speed" or who "just don't care at all", "it must be proven in every country that the laws of Isaac Newton are true".) [page 41]

 

[FoxEye]

Clearly the answer is not to hit the pedestrian in the first place

 

[bitslice]

Police have too much power,
say a succession of 30mph speeding events lands you with 12 points and a ban.
Not being able to drive means for most people that you will lose your job

No children were harmed, nobody got hurt, nothing horrible happened.
how does that justify being made unemployable by the State?

The punishment is excessive and bears no relation to the crime.
Points should for the most part be replaced with fines.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Maybe because if you speed in a 30 zone (i.e driving around 40mph) then you have increased the chance of a fatal pedestrian crash by a factor of 2!!
Selfish, unacceptable and well worthy of a ban for repeated offenders!!

 

[Akagi]

Speed limits only exist because most people have no common sense or self control.

It would be nice to be able to drive faster than 30 down a speed camera infested straight road at 3AM.

 

[mattyfez]

What a stupid question! Of course speed kills

reduce all speed limits to 25mph! think of the children!

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Clearly the answer is not to hit the pedestrian in the first place

Which is MUCH harder to do if you are going faster!!

It really isn't complicated, it's basic science and the level of denial in this thread is pathetic!! It's akin to Ken Ham and his wacky creationist belief of a 6k earth

reduce all speed limits to 25mph! think of the children!

/notsureifserious.jpg

Because that's a sensible and practical solution to reducing fatalities on u.k roads without everything grinding to a halt!!

 

[mattyfez]

Maybe because if you speed in a 30 zone (i.e driving around 40mph) then you have increased the chance of a fatal pedestrian crash by a factor of 2!!
Selfish, unacceptable and well worthy of a ban for repeated offenders!!

*If the pedestrian decides to jump out without looking, into oncoming traffic.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

*If the pedestrian decides to jump out without looking, into oncoming traffic.

They deserve to die

Are you really postulating this as a reason for drivers to be able to drive faster than 30mph in built up high risk areas

WOW Selfish / Sociopath gold level unlocked!!

 

[mattyfez]

They deserve to die

Are you really postulating this as a reason for drivers to be able to drive faster than 30mph in built up high risk areas

WOW Selfish / Sociopath gold level unlocked!!

urrm, yeh you're not really getting this debate

 

[D.P.]

How about when a lorry hits a pedestrian at 60mph - is it the sudden loss of speed that causes them to disintegrate into a fine red mist?

Rapid acceleration, positive or negative, kills.

 

[Katoom]

If speed kills, then how come motorways are much safer per mile than roads?

 

[Will Gill]

I'm moving this to motors for a more realistic and balanced response, it's had enough GD wikipedia injected into it....

 

[theone8181]

Surly it depends on whether its a modern car with all round discs or and older car with drums as well?

 

[Haggisman]

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 was under the impression (maybe wrongly) that fatalities were ultimately less expensive than serious injuries, due to the long-term drain on NHS, disability benefits, etc.?

 

[Barks]

Clearly the answer is not to hit the pedestrian in the first place

Or the pedestrian shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

I'm fed up of the old 'what if a kid runs onto the road chasing a football.' If one of us hit and killed a kid on the main rood it would probably haunt us for the rest of our lives but it still ultimately would not have been entirely our fault.

When a cat gets hit by a car do we all blame the car driver because the cat didn't stop and check the road was clear before running out into it? A lower speed may improve our ability to react and prevent such accidents but it is not always automatically the fault of the driver.

My mum almost got hit crossing a road in a built up urban area. A car had pulled over to let someone out so she started crossing, and some kid in a tin can decided to floor it round the car and overtake it, almost hitting her. Is that his fault for dangerous driving, or is that her fault for just running out onto the road and not anticipating the queue of traffic might try to overtake the car?

My point is... It is not automatically and always the fault of the driver. If we lived in a perfect world where all drivers were highly intelligent, rational, sensible and forward thinking human beings we wouldn't even need speed limits as people would adapt their driving speed to the condition/environment. They exist because most drivers are in fact the complete opposite of this.

 

[Tefal]

I was under the impression (maybe wrongly) that fatalities were ultimately less expensive than serious injuries, due to the long-term drain on NHS, disability benefits, etc.?

not to the police though they spend more investigating the deaths.

 

[Jono8]

Surly it depends on whether its a modern car with all round discs or and older car with drums as well?

...and whether someone has skimped out on ling long tyres to save a few quid because "all the user reviews for them on that tyre sight are great" or actually bought decent rubber.

I had to stop very quickly from 30mph to a standstill the other day on a wet road with standing water as a school kid just ran out in front of me. I am 100% sure that if I had budget ditch finders instead of Michelin PS3's all round, the kid would not have made it across the road. I was astonished at the cars ability to pull up so quickly on such a wet road to be honest.

 

[Akagi]

I have cheapo part worn tyres (when they were new they would have cost the same as or less than Ling Longs), small front disks and rear drums, and stepping on the brakes makes you feel like your face is coming off.

I am getting wider wheels with better tyres next week though, don't fret.

 

[InvaderGIR]

This is such a fun subject....

http://bristol20mph.co.uk


I asked them for some genuine research and accurate information as to why this is such a good idea outside of school areas, I got the below document linked.

Supporting document for 20mph everywhere in towns


This document is full of so much utter trash and comes to some great (read: bad) conclusions from dodgy data it's unbelievable.

There is loads of talk of "lower speed limits to save children" completely ignoring that one of the causes is children not knowing about road safety....but hey, lower limits will make everyone ok.