This will make you think twice about driving like an idiot a
- Thread starter Moore
- Start date
bmwangler said:I agree that inattention, bad driving, etc, is responsible for the majority of motoring accidents.
However, let's stop kidding ourselves - if we're honest we all know that speed does, ultimately, make the differece between an accident and a fatalty in many cases.
Simple statistics - the majority of pedestrians survive a 30mph impact but most die from a 40mph one - that's a fact.
Similarly, I'd rate my chances of surviving a blow-out at 50mph a lot better than if I was having a chancy blast at 100mph. Etc,etc, etc
Perhaps the slogan needs to be changed from "Speed Kills" to "Speed Can kill
See.. I know what you're saying - but it's this that really grinds my gears!
As we've brought statistics into the fold, I'd like to just put this on the table:
According the that government statistics, 15,811 kids were injured in road accidents in 2001 (of which 107 tragically and regrettably died).
We also know from the same statistic source that 65% of all road users travel at speeds above the speed limit in 30mph zones.
It therefore follows that 10,277 of those injured were caused by drivers breaking the speed limit.
(As we're building a case against speeding, we'll also assume that all 107 who died were killed by cars initially travelling above the speed limit)
We are also well aware, thanks to being graphically informed on TV and further government figures, that at 30mph, 50% of impacts are fatal, whilst at 40mph that figure rises to 90%.
Using the above injury figure (10277), we know 10,170 survived being hit , which means that at the point of impact,
the vehicles could not have being going anywhere near "speeds over the posted limit", as the fatal impact rate is just 2%.
But it gets more interesting when you factor in the governments statistic that at just 20mph, they expect 10% of all casualties to die - which would have meant 1,000 deaths in the above statistics. Again, if you factor in all 107 who did die, that still means 893 survived - again suggesting that the impact speeds must have
been less than 20mph.
So, if in 99% of all accidents where the car was speeding did not result in a fatality, it's acceptable to say (in the worst case scenario using these statistics), speed kills 1% of the time.
That's 1%.. in the WORST CASE scenario against "speeding".
Clearly something else (or, realistically, several things) plays a much bigger part in determining whether an injury becomes a fatality?
a11y said:
Exactly. My sister is a prime example - doesn't even reach the speed limit on most roads and will not go near a motorway (thank god) but she pays no attention to what is happening around her. She's far more interested in her kids in the backseat. I refuse to get in her car now - if I wanted a thrill ride I would go to Alton Towers!
If you had a choice between being hit by a car driving fast and one driving slow what would you prefer ?
I never have understood the argument that speed is not a factor in accidents. Accidents just happen sometimes and the slower the speed the lesser the injury.
Concentration is important too. But who can claim to always have exactly 100% focus 100% of the time ?
I never have understood the argument that speed is not a factor in accidents. Accidents just happen sometimes and the slower the speed the lesser the injury.
Concentration is important too. But who can claim to always have exactly 100% focus 100% of the time ?
It is about being hit or not, not how fast etc.
Otherwise the argument would be that:
- Cyclists can only cycle 5 mph as they hurt themselves or pedestrians more when cycling faster.
- Pedestrians should only shuffle as when running, they injure themselves more when they do fall over.
- Footballers should kick the ball less hard as being hit by a fast travelling footbal hurts more. Same for tennis.
I just don't get the principle of concentrating on just a single aspect of an event whilst there are dozens of other factors involved.
Otherwise the argument would be that:
- Cyclists can only cycle 5 mph as they hurt themselves or pedestrians more when cycling faster.
- Pedestrians should only shuffle as when running, they injure themselves more when they do fall over.
- Footballers should kick the ball less hard as being hit by a fast travelling footbal hurts more. Same for tennis.
I just don't get the principle of concentrating on just a single aspect of an event whilst there are dozens of other factors involved.
Driving an old crap car fast is dangerous, as its handling and braking performance are not as good as our Zed. 
High performance cars with better brakes can stop the car at shorter distance at higher speed than normal family cars can.
So even overtaking other car in your Zed on a single carriage over speed limit is not dangerous, as long as you can make correct judgement on all other factors, i.e. performance of other cars and road condition (it will be dangerous/stupid if you try to overtake a Ferrari).
High performance cars with better brakes can stop the car at shorter distance at higher speed than normal family cars can.
So even overtaking other car in your Zed on a single carriage over speed limit is not dangerous, as long as you can make correct judgement on all other factors, i.e. performance of other cars and road condition (it will be dangerous/stupid if you try to overtake a Ferrari).
pvr said:
You are confusing two issue here,
a) Whether someone is hit or not, and
b) If they are hit, will extra speed add to injury or risk of death.
I have no statistics on either of these. But speaking for myself on (b), I would rather be hit by a car that is driving slow than one driving fast. Maybe it's just me, but I think it would hurt less. 8)
I really don't follow your analogies, at all.
"Cyclists can only cycle 5 mph as they hurt themselves or pedestrians more when cycling faster".
To me it's obvious that a speeding cyclist would cause more damage to a pedestrian than a slow cyclist. But in any case Idon;t see how this is relevant when we are talking about cars that travel at much greater speeds.
"Pedestrians should only shuffle as when running, they injure themselves more when they do fall over".
I thought we were talking about several tons of metal on wheels here, not just people wandering along the pavement. How is this relevant ?
"Footballers should kick the ball less hard as being hit by a fast travelling footbal hurts more. Same for tennis".
Ditto. Whats this got to do with being hit by a car ?
For me the link in the original thread is a useful thing to look at from time to time to remind us that while we all like speedy cars they can cause some serious damage, and put you behind bars.
I was explaining that extra speed affects everything in daily life, which you would never consider changing as it is to stupid to do so. The same applies to car speed - don't concentrate on the single item that all numpties seem to have picked upon.
In your example, you would be happy to be hit at a slow speed by a solid block of metal with points sticking out rather then an aerodynamic one with a soft bonnet and sloping front to minimise injuries to pedestrians. As long as the speed is low, all is good and blinkered about considering other issues.
The video shows to me issues with almost anything else BUT speed.
In your example, you would be happy to be hit at a slow speed by a solid block of metal with points sticking out rather then an aerodynamic one with a soft bonnet and sloping front to minimise injuries to pedestrians. As long as the speed is low, all is good and blinkered about considering other issues.
The video shows to me issues with almost anything else BUT speed.
+1WLH said:Most of the time driving around town and in residential area I drive like I am the Grand Marshal of The Rose Bowl parade. However, when on a road that I know and can safely push it a little....well....
It's not speed that kills...it's being stupid and reckless... :!:
In residential areas the fear of hitting someone's kid is always on my mind. A familiar open road, known to be without cameras, is a different story altogether.
The stupidity of most road users (where I live, at least) never ceases to amaze me.
Siener2 said:+1WLH said:Most of the time driving around town and in residential area I drive like I am the Grand Marshal of The Rose Bowl parade. However, when on a road that I know and can safely push it a little....well....
It's not speed that kills...it's being stupid and reckless... :!:
In residential areas the fear of hitting someone's kid is always on my mind. A familiar open road, known to be without cameras, is a different story altogether.
The stupidity of most road users (where I live, at least) never ceases to amaze me.
This is a good point. If I am going to put my foot down a bit I tend to do so out of town where if I have an accident it will effect me and have much lesser likelihood of hurting someone else. What right does anyone have to put other people at risk ?
PVR - we seem to have a very opposite opinions on this, and that's fair enough 8) . But to me what you are saying about speed is like saying that if you get scolded, the heat of the water is not a key factor in the resulting injury. To me it's patently obvious that more damage will be caused the higher the speed. This fact might be a bit of an inconvenience to those of us who like fast cars, but it should be in our minds when driving.
IMHO, the problem with speed is fourfold:
1. Other road users have no way of predicting that you are travelling much faster than the other vehicles they have encountered so far on their trip – and you have no right to expect them to be able to predict this. So do not be surprised when they turn right in front of you.
2. Your reaction time is fixed and cannot compensate for the bigger distances you cover in a given time interval. Momentary inattention at speed potentially has much more serious consequences for this very reason.
3. Physics (i): The (kinetic) energy your vehicle has is what causes the damage/injuries in an accident. The energy increases with the square of the speed.
4. Physics (ii): The braking distance also increases with the square of the speed. Note that this is a totally separate factor from the one mentioned in point 2 above - point 2 is what happens until you actually start braking, while this point is what happens once you are full on the brakes. Your stopping distance from (say) 200km/h is FOUR times as long as your stopping distance from 100km/h and SIXTEEN times as long as your stopping distance from 50km/h.
Yes, as a petrolhead I also do not like hearing this, but unfortunately it is the truth.
1. Other road users have no way of predicting that you are travelling much faster than the other vehicles they have encountered so far on their trip – and you have no right to expect them to be able to predict this. So do not be surprised when they turn right in front of you.
2. Your reaction time is fixed and cannot compensate for the bigger distances you cover in a given time interval. Momentary inattention at speed potentially has much more serious consequences for this very reason.
3. Physics (i): The (kinetic) energy your vehicle has is what causes the damage/injuries in an accident. The energy increases with the square of the speed.
4. Physics (ii): The braking distance also increases with the square of the speed. Note that this is a totally separate factor from the one mentioned in point 2 above - point 2 is what happens until you actually start braking, while this point is what happens once you are full on the brakes. Your stopping distance from (say) 200km/h is FOUR times as long as your stopping distance from 100km/h and SIXTEEN times as long as your stopping distance from 50km/h.
Yes, as a petrolhead I also do not like hearing this, but unfortunately it is the truth.
Siener2, thanks for putting the scientific angle on it, and I totally agree.
But even without that it's just plain common sense that higher speeds are a KEY factor in accidents and the injuries and rates of fatalities caused. We just wish it wasn't 8)
But even without that it's just plain common sense that higher speeds are a KEY factor in accidents and the injuries and rates of fatalities caused. We just wish it wasn't 8)
I'm sure there are way too many issues getting confused here.
In any identical crash situation, then it's certain that the higher the speed the more damage, injury, etc. That seems a pretty obvious as a scientific fact.
That said, go back and look at the original video clip. The vast majority of those are not speed, but crass stupidity, driver inattention, pedestrian stupidity, etc. People walking out into a line of cars slow driving cars, looking at the girl while turning the corner, rear ending a car into a child at about 5mph. and so on. I'd have to say from the clip there most were not speed related.
It is however easier to campaign and manage speed limits than to ask people (drivers and pedestrians) to be more observant.
In any identical crash situation, then it's certain that the higher the speed the more damage, injury, etc. That seems a pretty obvious as a scientific fact.
That said, go back and look at the original video clip. The vast majority of those are not speed, but crass stupidity, driver inattention, pedestrian stupidity, etc. People walking out into a line of cars slow driving cars, looking at the girl while turning the corner, rear ending a car into a child at about 5mph. and so on. I'd have to say from the clip there most were not speed related.
It is however easier to campaign and manage speed limits than to ask people (drivers and pedestrians) to be more observant.
cj10jeeper said:
Agreed that this is probably why speed gets all the attention. If it is not really practical to police things like attention, stupidity, etc then perhaps accepting that they exist then all that can be done is to reign in speeds so that the resulting inevitable accidents are less severe. The problem is that some people might thing this is unfair as they consider themselves to have advanced driving skills and better road sense, ..but again there is no obvious way of policing this. So it's low speeds, and one size fits all.
All the points made above by cj10 and others regarding bad driving I agree with 100%. Also that speed is directly related to resultant damage in the case of collision.cj10jeeper said:
The faster you travel the less margin for error you have - your senses and judgement all have to react quicker.
Hands on hearts here guys - if you go fast and something goes wrong (maybe not your fault) you crash big, do much more damage to yourself and others. Yes there are crap drivers, yes there are dangerous idiots and they all cause more accidents than the gifted fast driver, but the fact is, slow everyone down and less damage will ensue - we can't argue with that.
Finally, I have to say that I'm being honest and a Devil's Advocate here - I myself am always taking stick for driving too quickly, I love speed but I'm not kidding myself about the reality either