driving slow : your views ?

topdaddy_2

matttye wrote: »

You can deny it all you like, but at slower speeds people have more time to react and the resulting collision will be less severe as well.

Let's pretend that everyone kept their exact driving ability and level of concentration, but reduced their speeds by 20%. HOW could that result in more accidents?

You're attributing accidents to the loss of concentration rather than loss of speed, but you're making a bit of a leap there.

I dint see the correlation between speed and safety. If less speed is safe then , reducing speed to walking place would be safest. Yet crashes would still occur due to driver error. The government campains of speed equals bad are certainly working. Even if the stats dont back it up.

matttye

AdrianC wrote: »

I love such blind optimism.



Perhaps, but it's one borne out by figures which the Police released a few years ago, compiled from on-scene accident investigation reports. They found that somewhere south of 10% of all collisions had speed in excess of the limit as a (not the sole) cause, with excess speed for the conditions a bit higher. The largest single causes, by a huge gap, were inattention and failure to look.

Unfortunately, those figures - rather than being updated regularly, which would've been nice - were promptly "lost" in a redesign of the Gov't website that they were on. Probably because they were so inconvenient to the desired message.

So where does the slower speeds = more inattention bit come in? You haven't addressed that in your post.

matttye

topdaddy wrote: »

I dint see the correlation between speed and safety. If less speed is safe then , reducing speed to walking place would be safest. Yet crashes would still occur due to driver error. The government campains of speed equals bad are certainly working. Even if the stats dont back it up.

Obviously driver error is the main, and often, sole, cause for accidents. I'm just saying that less speed gives people longer to respond (either to correct their own or other drivers' mistakes) and, should a collision occur, it will be less severe.

I'm saying that if EVERYONE drove at less speed, the roads would be safer. Clearly this is an impossible fantasy and entirely hypothetical.

If some people drive more slowly but others don't, then it won't really make a difference, but if everybody did, the roads would clearly be safer. It's irrefutable.

AdrianC

matttye wrote: »

So where does the slower speeds = more inattention bit come in? You haven't addressed that in your post.

Apart from the vicious circle of less attention being required meaning less attention is given, and vice-versa, the whole "nanny knows best" rationalisation behind the recent changes in road safety policing and the government messages have developed an attitude - very clearly and widely visible - of "I'm doing the speed limit and I'm not on the phone, so I must be driving safely". Add in the increased isolation, ease of driving, and driving-"aid" alphabetti-spaghetti on modern cars, and you have a situation where the average driver is firmly brain-in-neutral at every single opportunity. Decreases in average speeds a few years ago when the fuel prices shot up merely seemed to worsen that.

wildincrawley

AdrianC wrote: »

I love such blind optimism.



Perhaps, but it's one borne out by figures which the Police released a few years ago, compiled from on-scene accident investigation reports. They found that somewhere south of 10% of all collisions had speed in excess of the limit as a (not the sole) cause, with excess speed for the conditions a bit higher. The largest single causes, by a huge gap, were inattention and failure to look.

Unfortunately, those figures - rather than being updated regularly, which would've been nice - were promptly "lost" in a redesign of the Gov't website that they were on. Probably because they were so inconvenient to the desired message.

I think the figure was that the major cause of 8% of accidents was excessive speed for the conditions. The problem with the current focus on "speed is dangerous" is it takes the focus off fixing the main causes of accidents. I would far prefer we balanced our approach to focus on avoiding the other 92% of accidents as well.

Or to put it another way, if we have a national budget for reducing accidents, 8% of that budget should go to reducing excessive speeds, and the other 92% should go to addressing the other major causes of accidents. I don't think we have that balance at the moment.

AdrianC

wildincrawley wrote: »

I think the figure was that the major cause of 8% of accidents was excessive speed for the conditions

OK, so even lower than I remember. Fair enough. "...for the conditions" (with the implicit "but within the limit") was certainly more prevalent than "...for the limit".

matttye

AdrianC wrote: »

Apart from the vicious circle of less attention being required meaning less attention is given, and vice-versa, the whole "nanny knows best" rationalisation behind the recent changes in road safety policing and the government messages have developed an attitude - very clearly and widely visible - of "I'm doing the speed limit and I'm not on the phone, so I must be driving safely". Add in the increased isolation, ease of driving, and driving-"aid" alphabetti-spaghetti on modern cars, and you have a situation where the average driver is firmly brain-in-neutral at every single opportunity. Decreases in average speeds a few years ago when the fuel prices shot up merely seemed to worsen that.

I have to say that in my relatively new driving "career" - 5 years and counting - I see more problems caused by people in a rush than slow drivers.

Case in point, whenever there's a cyclist coming along the opposite carriageway, I can say with 90% certainty that some idiot will almost clip my car because they can't be bothered to wait until it's clear to overtake. Usually I just keep a steady course but I've had to move to the left a couple of times to give them more room, almost leaving the carriageway myself.

wildincrawley wrote: »

I think the figure was that the major cause of 8% of accidents was excessive speed for the conditions. The problem with the current focus on "speed is dangerous" is it takes the focus off fixing the main causes of accidents. I would far prefer we balanced our approach to focus on avoiding the other 92% of accidents as well.

Or to put it another way, if we have a national budget for reducing accidents, 8% of that budget should go to reducing excessive speeds, and the other 92% should go to addressing the other major causes of accidents. I don't think we have that balance at the moment.

It is perhaps because speed is often linked with irresponsible driving. I see some absolutely shocking overtakes. If a collision occurred, it would be the inappropriate overtaking manoeuvre that is the cause, but these idiots usually drive quickly as well.

I think the idea is to slow people down, make them stop and actually take in what's happening around them and respond accordingly, rather than just try to get there as fast as possible.

Inattention and speed are linked, when you think that someone who wants to get somewhere as fast as possible will take unnecessary risks (the aforementioned overtaking) and also travel faster than appropriate.

I have no problem with people who speed, so long as they're paying attention and it's safe to do so.

sinbad182

Bloody hell lads, just agree and tell AdrianC he's right, you'll be here all day otherwise whilst he argues the toss.

AdrianC

matttye wrote: »

Case in point, whenever there's a cyclist coming along the opposite carriageway, I can say with 90% certainty that some idiot will almost clip my car because they can't be bothered to wait until it's clear to overtake.

ITYF that's inattention and a lack of awareness, not speed.

A very similar, but clearer, example - the other day, I was waiting at the start of a "pinch" in town, for the cars ahead to clear through so that an articulated lorry could then come towards me. The driver of the car behind assumed I was parking, and went to overtake... because they apparently couldn't see a 38 tonner less than 100yds away. The car behind them then didn't allow enough space for them to back out the way, leading to all sorts of chaos which required me to move forwards and reduce the space available for the truck, so it could get through at all, since there was now a softroader damn-near sideways behind/alongside me.

matttye

AdrianC wrote: »

ITYF that's inattention and a lack of awareness, not speed.

A very similar, but clearer, example - the other day, I was waiting at the start of a "pinch" in town, for the cars ahead to clear through so that an articulated lorry could then come towards me. The driver of the car behind assumed I was parking, and went to overtake... because they apparently couldn't see a 38 tonner less than 100yds away. The car behind them then didn't allow enough space for them to back out the way, leading to all sorts of chaos which required me to move forwards and reduce the space available for the truck, so it could get through at all, since there was now a softroader damn-near sideways behind/alongside me.

I said "people in a rush" not "speeders." But there's a clear correlation between being in a rush and speeding.

In your situation, the person behind was probably in a rush as well - not taking enough time to focus on what was happening, too intent on getting to their destination.

If someone is thinking "crap I'm really late" the whole journey then they're not going to pay as much attention as someone who leaves in plenty of time.