So there is a great quote from the DfT in this article, "The Department for Transport (DfT) says that for every 1mph the average speed of vehicles reduces on roads, there are 6% fewer accidents."

So does that mean if we reduce the average speed by 17mph there will be no accidents at all? Of course that is not true but it continues to brain wash people who can't think for themselves that speed is the source of all road accidents and so long as you obey the limit you'll be fine.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31904471

 

They do come up with some crap.

The French government showed everyone a graph showing the rate of fall of deaths since speed cameras were introduced en masse over there.

Then the Ligue des Conducteurs showed everyone that it was just PART of a much larger graph, showing that deaths had been falling AT EXACTLY THE SAME RATE since about 1970...due to seatbelts, better tyres, better road design, better shock absorbers, side impact bars, better suspension, better brakes etc etc etc ....but the simplistic view is that it's the cameras.......

 

I think you might of had a bit if a maths fail there fella.

On the point about speed, I think they are trying to make it simple for people to understand. Not sure it's working though

 

Puts it all in context...
http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...and-wales-2010

 

speeding doesn't cause that many accidents. not paying attention or inappropriate speed for conditions will cause more accidents.

one incident for accidents is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047
drivers could only see 30 feet, but were continuing to drive at 70mph with zero visibility
70 drivers that crashed admitted they couldn't see much further than the end of their bonnet
it they had all driven to the conditions of the road (drive as fast as you can see to safely stop) nobody would have crashed


one way to stop people speeding if to fit a 200mm spike on the steering wheel, if the accident is non fault, the spike retracts. see how many people use inappropriate speed or tailgate with the spike fitted......

 

But if speed is one of the causes of accidents, then isn't highlighting it a good thing?

 

And if there's more and more cars on the road...

 

Not on car forums it isn't

 

Speed is rarely the actual cause of the accident parsay, may increase the damage done, but not the cause, most are bad driving.

Doing 90mph on an empty motorway on a clear dry day is less of a risk than doing 30 on a 40mph road in heavy rain and fog.

the stats take no account of that

 

Would the intent matter though

I mean the impact at 35 over 25 is a lot more severe on the pedestrian

 

Nothing wrong at all, as long as some context is put behind it.

 

My little jaunt to Wasall today: Very foggy. Many drivers with no lights

Usual idiots hogging overtaking lanes.

40mph everywhere bridgade out in full force.

Cut up about five times at junctions and roundabouts by drivers simply not looking and assesing speed (my lights are on and I am visible).

Best one was a timid female asian who appeared to have no idea of rights of way who came to a complete sudden halt on a main trunk road...whilst a HGV laden with steel girders (6axles=44tonnes) struggled to stop behind her! She did it again half way up a steep hill too...which meant the HGV with his 18odd gears had to start off in a crawler gear. Think if it were me on a bad day I'd have pushed her up the hill (500+bhp Scania v8 )!

 

Yeah at 35mph, you'll probably die.

at 25mph you'll probably live, but could end up being a paraplegic dribbler*

*depending on if you stray into the path of a Navara/L200 Pick-up or a jelly-mould fronted Peugeot.

But of course so long as you are alive, the statisticians will be happy that reducing speed has done its job

 

That sounds like female blumin mindedness ...

over/ together with lack of knowledge mechanics / spatial awareness


all same ting really

 

Speed doesn't kill, I've been 600mph in a plane, no problems at all.
If you hit something at that speed, different story

 

Wicked.

Yeah the Government haven't helped...they love the revenue generated by the motorist...s*it even the doleys have cars now as buses are just simply not upmarket enough for our unemployed(able). Subsuquently, roads are overrun with badly trained imbeciles who are oblivious to the appalling standards and repercussions of their driving but are only too quick to give you the w**ker sign when you have just had to brake sharply after they have swerved into your lane 0.01 of a second after applying the indicator or in their case the immedicator. Too many divs on the road is all...but when you have a Govt addicted to revenue, you are gonna get this...more smokers (it kills), more drinkers (it kills) more divs on the road (they kill more than speed does)

 

I was driving on the M18, I had just gone down the slip road and was doing 60mph. A white Skoda Octavia passed me in the fast lane, then passed the car in front of me. He then moved into the middle lane and nearly stopped!!!!

he must have thought he was going a bit quick and it would be much safer if he pulled in front of a van and braked hard It's a good job there wasn't a lorry behind me

 

Clear to see the thinking there. I don't fancy queuing in the left hand lane so what I'll do is continue to hoon down the other two lanes and nip in at the last minute. Then spots the nose to tail traffic and panics.

 

Don't know why, my set up gets to 18 seconds and no further that vid

 

Looks like he's on a phone?

 

Wow! What a ****ing anus!

In fact, that's actually an insult to anuses.

 

Daily occurance on the M5-M6 interchange.

The only way to prevent arseholes cutting in and braking is to tailgate the vehicle infront.

Sounds stupid and dangerous, but the act of someone cutting in and brake testing you is no better.

 

Was her race relevant?

Just saying, considering the thread you just started

 

Not until you came along.
A female Asian.
Two out of three. Pity she didn't look like a dyke. That'd be a full house.

 

Probably.

The police do it every time they describe a person, IC1, IC2 etc.
Are they racist?

 

 

No, that's their description. We are discriminating one race (or group) as apposed to another

 

And if I said it was a white middle aged male I guess that observation wouldn't have been noticed?


No?

Just saying, as a matter of fact

 

You could have said fat, thin, fit, blonde, brunette, ginger, ugly, stupid, idiot etc etc but you aren't allowed to say their race or colour.
Remember if we pretend everyone is the same colour then the world will live in peace 😄.