Couple of speeding questions..

Idiophreak

gaz_jones wrote: »

You being in a state of panic whilst speeding makes it worse IMO. I am sorry to hear that your friends partner was in distress but that doesn't give an excuse to speed still. By speeding you are far more likely to cause a crash therefore causing many families distress.

I know none of us are perfect and we all go over the speed limit some times but people need to accept the responsibilites of their actions. I am glad you didn't get a speeding ticket but a ticket could have been the least of your worries if you had crashed at that speed.

I wasn't in a state of panic, I was perfectly calm.

Do you have any statistics to back up your hypothesis on speeding causing accidents?

Just wondering as the DfT don't seem to agree with you:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1974.asp

I accept that higher speeds will amplify the results of an accident, however - and it's certainly something I thought about...what would happen if I had a blow out, or an engine fell off a passing aeroplane and so on.

Whether I was right or wrong to speed, however, is really neither here nor there. I didn't *have* to speed, no...I felt I had to - but that's more or less the same thing, given that nobody's actually come up with anything that you *have* to do...

gaz_jones

'By speeding you are far more likely to cause a crash'

Is what I said, which I still feel is a pretty valid point. I would like to see evidence to the contrary. You are more likely to cause a crash whilst speeding, than whilst driving to the speed limit. Common sense should tell you that. If you still need proof have a look at this:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/novice_driver_safety/learner/learner_speeding.aspx

Or just do a google search, pretty sure you'll find the general concensous is that driving fast is more dangerous than sticking to the speed limit.

And yes you are right, not only would they cause the crash, but they would amplify it as you said.

I didn't say that speeding was the main cause of crashes or anything along those lines. I said that your more likely to crash if you are speeding than if you are not. Your link therefore is irrelivant.

Idiophreak

gaz_jones wrote: »

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/novice_driver_safety/learner/learner_speeding.aspx

That link's interesting. Gives figures as fact, but doesn't actually offer any explanation of where those figures are derived from.

Their logic, with no explanation otherwise, seems to be based on the idea of hitting a child - a situation in which you're unable to increase your stopping distance - driving at speed on the motorway presents different risks which may be hedged against, somewhat, by extending stopping distances.

I *have* googled and can't find anything to support your conjecture - I'm assuming you couldn't, either - otherwise you'd have posted it.

My link, however, still supports the opposite - the two points are not, as you seems to think, unrelated.

Of 100 accidents, 98, say, will not be caused by excess speed, so at any time you may have 98% of all accidents, irrespective of the speed you're travelling. Speeding only adds another 2% of accidents you're able to have - so an increase of something like 2.5% - I don't see 2.5% more likely as being "far more likely"...so did you mean to just say "by speeding you are more likely to cause a crash" - a statement actually supported by the numbers?

Lemonade_Pockets

The only type of speeding that causes accidents is inappropriate speed.

I think it is within most peoples capability to travel along the motorway in excess of 70mph and not have an accident. Hence despite most people breaking the speed limit routinely on motorway's statistically these are still the safest type of road.

Lemonade_Pockets

gaz_jones wrote: »

'By speeding you are far more likely to cause a crash'

Is what I said, which I still feel is a pretty valid point. I would like to see evidence to the contrary. You are more likely to cause a crash whilst speeding, than whilst driving to the speed limit. Common sense should tell you that. If you still need proof have a look at this:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/novice_driver_safety/learner/learner_speeding.aspx

Or just do a google search, pretty sure you'll find the general concensous is that driving fast is more dangerous than sticking to the speed limit.

And yes you are right, not only would they cause the crash, but they would amplify it as you said.

I didn't say that speeding was the main cause of crashes or anything along those lines. I said that your more likely to crash if you are speeding than if you are not. Your link therefore is irrelivant.

(This is a bit of bizare thought process so apologies if it doesnt make sense) The only problem with this theory is the opposite is almost impossible to prove.
How do you measure all the accidents that have been avoided because of speed?
You can't because no1 records data for accidents that don't happen. I would argue that when i'm driving fast, i am more alert and therefore more likely to respond to hazards. Touch wood i firmly believe this is why i haven't got any driving convictions or had any accidents in 6years of driving.
Conversley how many accidents have happened where excess speed was not deemed to be a factor, but it happened because the driver was busy making sure he did 29.9mph instead of just driving at an appropiate speed and observing hazards. Guess what no records for that type of thing either.

+ Just to add a little anecdote that might amuse the speed sympathisers.
I will never forget the day my Grandpa who at the time was a IAM instructor, former examiner, who stuck rigidly to the speed limit with some 50yrs experience driving. Got his 1st speeding ticket a couple of years ago, for - you guessed it doing 31mph on a dual carriage way near his house.

Happychappy

Lemonade_Pockets wrote: »

(+ Just to add a little anecdote that might amuse the speed sympathisers.
I will never forget the day my Grandpa who at the time was a IAM instructor, former examiner, who stuck rigidly to the speed limit with some 50yrs experience driving. Got his 1st speeding ticket a couple of years ago, for - you guessed it doing 31mph on a dual carriage way near his house.

And the reason he was singled out as the only person on earth to be knocked off for doing 1mph over the speed limit, was he was distracted by the pink elephant flying over the car :rolleyes: nice effort

Lemonade_Pockets

Happychappy wrote: »

And the reason he was singled out as the only person on earth to be knocked off for doing 1mph over the speed limit, was he was distracted by the pink elephant flying over the car :rolleyes: nice effort

To be fair it was 31. something but Bravo thought some1 might say that. It is more common than you think (it was a camera - no discretion required).
edit: actually not sure wether it was a camera might of been a copper

Happychappy

Lemonade_Pockets wrote: »

To be fair it was 31. something but Bravo thought some1 might say that. It is more common than you think (it was a camera - no discretion required).
edit: actually not sure wether it was a camera might of been a copper

More than likely 36 or 37 with the speedo reading around 39 to 40 ? and that is most certainly more common than you think

Lemonade_Pockets

Lol. Yeah tell me about my sat nav and speedo are miles apart.
But his recorded speed was def 31 point something. To be fair he didn't get points or a fine. But he had to attend some driver training thing tho. Which made me laugh even more.