Roads in the area

[Ian]

Possibly dangerous driving is more to blame? A driver doing 100mph when they can see the road ahead is completely clear of danger is arguable much safer than someone over the limit doing 30mph round a town.

[Dave]

It's the slowing down that kills you!
Two cars head on at 10 mph below the limit of 60mph is deadlier than hitting a brick wall at 90mph.....
Anyway, I don't want to get involved in this discussion as I have said my bit about appropriate speed for the conditions in the past.
I served my punishment for my speeding offence in the A55 Abergele roadworks and I have to say it was indeed an eye opener attending the Awareness course and I have had a change of attitude to going driving fast. Does it really get you anywhere that much quicker? Well depends what sort of road for starters. Most injuries to road users happen in built up areas, most deaths on country roads. The safest are the motorways which only accounts for a tiny percentage of fatalities, 5% if I recall correctly. Motorways give the impression of being more dangerous than they are because when accidents happen they can be multi vehicle, if there is no traffic on the road it's perfectly safe to drive fast.
The other issue about speed is fuel consumption. My car was averaging around 45mpg  doing 75-80mph but at 60mph I was getting 60mpg too. Quite a difference. You do tend to arrive more relaxed despite being harassed by other drivers in the fast lane of a dual carriage way when you are overtaking something doing 60 and they come flying up behind you flashing their lights for blocking their progress at 80!
The other thing that they do bring across to you on a speed awareness course is not just the outcome for you if you have a bad accident but the impact on others. You can lose so much, particularly if you are guilty of breaking the law. Jail, loss of job, loss of house, financial security, broken marriage etc etc. Then there's living with the guilt if you have left someone dead or with life changing injuries.
It was all food for thought and I bought in to it.

[Bosun]

 
Despite all the indisputable evidence, there is always some half-wit who will pipe up to claim that that speed is not an issue.

If speed isn't an issue, how come I've never heard of someone being killed or seriously injured by being hit by a stationary vehicle.... 

[Ian]

Despite all the indisputable evidence, there is always some half-wit who will pipe up to claim that that speed is not an issue.

If speed isn't an issue, how come I've never heard of someone being killed or seriously injured by being hit by a stationary vehicle....

I believe that's called reductio ad absurdum, and otherwise a bit silly.    If we were to pursue your logic, then the safest course of action would be to remain in the house, curtains drawn and never, ever venture out. The risk of he house collapsing and killing us is less than being hit by a vehicle when crossing the road.

We have to accept that driving is a human activity which many find both enjoyable and satisfying and it's also something which in today's society is necessary. The aim is always to reduce risk, but we can never eliminate it. Given that, the only realistic comparison is between the different ways to make a journey combined with the necessity for making the journey, and that's quite a knotty issue.

Lets look at the facts:

1. Even though the risk of pedestrians being killed at 30 mph is relatively low, approximately half of pedestrian fatalities occur at this  impact speed or below.

2. You might believe there's indisputable evidence, but there really isn't. Stats on KSI (killed or seriously injured) road incidents don't reveal a pattern: 2013 had the lowest KSI incidents since records began, but 2016 (after years of intensive camera-related speed monitoring and enforcing) revealed a drastic leap.

3. This is about risk and few understand what risk really entails. Risk is "the probability or threat of quantifiable damage, injury, liability, loss, or any other negative occurrence that is caused by external or internal vulnerabilities, and that may be avoided through pre-emptive action.".  Risk can also be defined as "the unwanted subset of a set of uncertain outcomes".

What that's all saying is you cannot possibly consider whether a driver doing 75mph in a 70mph zone is likely to impose a greater KSI risk than, say - falling through a rotten floorboard on the pier, or drinking a contaminated drink or flying to Iraq for a holiday. We are at risk all the time, every day and the best we can do is mitigate the risk element, which itself might not be a good idea.  Over-protective parents are a good example of that.

The speed limit of 70mph is an arbitrary limit, unlike almost all other limits placed on our social behaviour, which have been tested and evaluated for probable outcomes.

And, if you examine the Government road accident stats in detail, you will notice that very, very few are KSIs directly attributable to excess speed.  They reveal the top five causes of KSIs:

1. Failure to look properly - approx 36% of KSIs.
2. Failing to judge another person’s path and/or speed - approx 20%
3. Being careless, reckless or in a hurry
4. Losing control
5. Drink driving


So unless you're prepared to believe that these are all "half-wits", Bosun, then a little research might be in order.
 

[Dave]

Despite all the indisputable evidence, there is always some half-wit who will pipe up to claim that that speed is not an issue.

If speed isn't an issue, how come I've never heard of someone being killed or seriously injured by being hit by a stationary vehicle....

By the same argument nobody has ever been killed by a gun either...it's the person who pulls the trigger that's responsible.
Inappropriate speed at a given time is the problem, not how fast you are travelling.

[Bosun]

So unless you're prepared to believe that these are all "half-wits", Bosun, then a little research might be in order.

So, Ian, you think I need to do some research.

Just very briefly, I'll explain how much research I've done. I spent three decades attending fatal, (sometimes multiple fatal) and serious injury RTC's as a qualified Accident Investigator and as a PG9 Vehicle Examiner.  I worked with the Forensic Science Laboratory, specialist university departments and the tyre industry research departments, amongst others, determining the causes of RTCs. I gave evidence at Coroners Court, Magistrates Court and Crown and Civil Courts. I've had to inform relatives that their loved one had been killed or injured, and to take relatives to the mortary to identify their loved ones. And to inform the parents of one teenage girl of her death and persuade them that they should not view her, her remains were just that, remains. She had been decapitated. Some nights, half asleep, I still see the faces of these people; the dead or the grieving relatives.

In all those I remember, I can only remember one was that was not due to excessive speed.

I think that actually, I've done enough research.

[Ian]

Fair enough, and I'm not disputing your expertise.  But what I am saying is that speed is only one factor in what are normally numerous and complex causative agents in a KSI accident.

In each of the incidents you recall, are you saying that all but one were simply people driving too fast? That there were no other complicating factors? That none of the others was drunk, or failed to take adequate care, or didn't look, or didn't simply lose control?

Speed was quite possibly an aggravating factor but it concerns me that people think speed is the entire cause, which it almost never is. At least, not according to the UK Gov's own statistics.

[Bosun]

Ian, contributory factors are ad infinitum, from the vehicle being on the road and moving, the the mood of the driver etc etc.

The constant factor is speed; excessive for the conditions, circumstances or situation.

I respectfully suggest in your research that you look at the consequences of speed and collision survival rates at lower speeds, such as https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/55705.htm

[mull]

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that 20 mph is the magic speed.
A person hit by a vehicle travelling up to 20mph stands a very high chance of surviving the impact.

I also recall from my BR days than a train travelling at 20 mph over defective track may derail, but will stay upright. Above that speed there is risk of overturning and causing casualties.

[Ian]

I respectfully suggest in your research that you look at the consequences of speed and collision survival rates at lower speeds, such as https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/55705.htm

I'd read that piece sometime ago, Bosun, and, apart from a notable lack of solid research of any sort, I think it essentially agrees with my observations above:

"a study by the West Midlands Police found that less than 2% of traffic accidents were caused by excessive speed"

"the worst abuses of statistics only claim that speed causes one third of accidents, with the true figure likely to be around 10 per cent."

"speed is a contributory factor in about 30% of accidents.

Now, there is a problem with this: I agree that excessive speed can be a contributory factor but - and it's a big 'but' - how that squares with arbitrarily imposed speed limits and fining those who exceed these limits is another issue entirely.

I was trained by Traffic police to drive and in fifty years of driving all over the country and in Europe and the states I've never had an accident. But I drive quickly because I enjoy the challenge of driving both fast and safely. 

There's no denying that a high speed collision - or a collision at almost any speed, really - will cause injuries. That's not the debate. What is up for debate is the assumption that simply enforcing speed limits will lead to a reduction in KSI instances. Because that's how this started.

An example might help. 

1. A 22 year-old man goes out to a pub and has a few, and coming out he meets a pal who offers him a joint.  He has two, and then sets off home in the car.  As he rounds a bend he loses control and hits a cyclist,who is seriously injured. He was doing 38 mph at the moment of impact in a 30mph zone.

Q: What was the cause of the accident:

a) Speed
b) Alcohol
c) Drugs
d) Lack of concentration induced by two of the above?

The final question is who honestly thinks that a camera detecting him and fining him prior to the collision would have mitigated the incident in any way at all?

The UK has one of the best safety records in the world with only Monaco, Micronesia, Norway and Switzerland having better. What do those countries have in common? Far less crowded roads.  And in countries where the KSI figures can be expressed as a percentage per 1bn Km driven, we're fourth overall in the world.

So yes; speed is a component but driving ability is by far and away the most important factor, coupled with capability, sobriety, sanity and intelligence. I remain to be convinced that reducing the KSI stats on UK roads is anywhere near as simple as enforcing arbitrary speed limits. I wish it were - I really do - but if there are half-wits around I suspect they're those who believe rigidly enforcing limits is the way to make everyone safer on the roads.

[Fester]

A friend of mine, and my Mum have both been caught for speeding recently.
Approximately 34mph in a 30 zone.
But, what I find interesting is, they can choose to attend to the speed awareness course or pay £100 fine.
Surely if the police are interested in road safety, and not just tax collecting.... you wouldn’t be able to buy your way out of the speed awareness course?
Am I missing something?

[Bosun]

Ian, I'm not getting involved in any further pointless discussion on this, Trump has proved conclusively that you can put any slant on any argument you care to, and decades of experience and knowledge obviously cannot change the opinion of an OAP with an internet connection.

[snowcap]

you still have to cough up on the speed awareness course, and it goes without saying the faster you go the more chance that the accident you may or may not cause will be far worse, i would rather be hit at 30 mile an hour than at 40 mile an hour, the speed limits are there for a good reason so just learn to live with them and stop trying to justify impatience

[Ian]

Ian, I'm not getting involved in any further pointless discussion on this, Trump has proved conclusively that you can put any slant on any argument you care to, and decades of experience and knowledge obviously cannot change the opinion of an OAP with an internet connection.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, Bosun, but merely attempting to broaden the scope of an argument that threatens to become worryingly myopic. And you can use your internet connection to further expand the parameters of the discussion and to locate all the pertinent information.

Statistics are important - vital, even - if we want to understand what makes our roads dangerous and how to make them safer. Or do you subscribe to a view that says only if you've done something yourself can you possibly know anything about it?

Finally, the comparison with Trump is interesting. 'Putting a slant' on debates is a tactic of the uninformed but refusing to debate further and throwing thinly (or not so thinly) veiled insults is of course, a favourite tactic of Trump's.

[squigglev2]

i would rather be hit at 30 mile an hour than at 40 mile an hour, the speed limits are there for a good reason so just learn to live with them and stop trying to justify impatience

I’d guess even that would depend on what hit you. Heavy lorry at 40 or a motor bike at 60?

I think some one questioned static vehicles.  A stationary vehicle on a free flowing motorway certainly can be a hazard and I believe has been accepted as being a contributory factor in serious accidents.

Personally, I consider that a driver who does not keep reasonable pace on a main road is a menace. I know it involves the eventual impatience of another driver but if you get someone “blocking” a good 60mph road by driving at 30. sooner or later, someone is going to try  a dodgy overtaking move.

Of course, to a certain extent, I’m playing devil’s advocate above. There are reasons for speed limits and dangers can be hidden. A common one in this area is that open roads may have quite blind side roads.

Although that particular one (and others) can lead you to also question the possibilities of road improvement...