The Great Speed Awareness Course Scam

Deastons

Cornucopia wrote: »

"Speed kills" is a sentiment that has been oversimplified beyond useful, accurate understanding. A more appropriate soundbite might be something like "Carelessness Kills" - that would cover a much greater proportion of bad driving and of accidents.

The challenge is to get over to the Public the requirement for diligent, sociable driving habits. That involves a huge range of things of which choosing an appropriate speed for the conditions is one element. (In other words, the consideration isn't even "speed", but appropriate speed for which the road limit may or may not be a good guide).

But I hope you concede that your comment ""Speed Kills" is just wrong in every conceivable way" is inaccurate. Speed certainly does kill.

I agree that a lot of accidents (but not all) are caused by driver carelessness, but I would argue that a speeding driver is doing so because they are either careless or distracted. Someone speeding is an indication that they are not driving with due care and attention, so to catch someone speeding is possibly preventing an future accident.

And not all accidents are the fault of the driver. When a small child runs into the road in front of my car, I will be adhering to the speed limit which will hopefully allow me to react in time or, at worst, lessen the injuries inflicted on the child. If I'm speeding, the situation will be a lot worse, not to mention me potentially being up for death by dangerous driving with up to 14 years in prison.

At the end of the day, what is gained by breaking the limit? A few extra minutes at home. I'm not sure it's worth it.

Deastons

Stoke wrote: »

I drive lots of country lanes that are safe to do 50, 60 or even more on and yet people will toddle along at 25-30mph, holding up streams of traffic, only to speed up and get angry if I try to safely overtake when an opportunity presents itself. Who's the bad driver there then?

I should have been more clear to prevent confusion. When I mention me driving at 20mph, I mean in a 20 zone. I agree that people driving too slow can be just as dangerous. The other day there was someone in the middle lane of the motorway doing around 30mph completely oblivious to the havoc they were causing.

Cornucopia

Deastons wrote: »

But I hope you concede that your comment ""Speed Kills" is just wrong in every conceivable way" is inaccurate. Speed certainly does kill.

I think it depends on what you mean by "speed", and what you mean by "kills". If you mean "speeding kills", then no, that's not right - speeding is endemic, and there is not carnage on the roads, as such. If you mean that absolute speed in a road context "kills", then no, motorways are both the fastest and safest roads we have. And so on...

I agree that a lot of accidents (but not all) are caused by driver carelessness, but I would argue that a speeding driver is doing so because they are either careless or distracted. Someone speeding is an indication that they are not driving with due care and attention, so to catch someone speeding is possibly preventing an future accident.

I agree that speed is (sadly) something that is relatively easy to see and to police, compared to other more complex, less visible infractions. However, you seem to be broadly agreeing that speeding/inappropriate speed is a sub-category of carelessness.

And not all accidents are the fault of the driver. When a small child runs into the road in front of my car, I will be adhering to the speed limit which will hopefully allow me to react in time or, at worst, lessen the injuries inflicted on the child. If I'm speeding, the situation will be a lot worse, not to mention me potentially being up for death by dangerous driving with up to 14 years in prison.

Maybe... depending again, on what you mean by "speeding". In a lot of ways, I would prefer it if there were no speeding offences, as such, but merely the considered judgement of an experience police officer as to whether the behaviour was careless, reckless or dangerous under the circumstances. However, I accept that that ship has sailed.

At the end of the day, what is gained by breaking the limit? A few extra minutes at home. I'm not sure it's worth it.

I'm not advocating speeding. I'm advocating a rational approach to all the hazards of the road.

There is virtually no road policing where I live, and I see that as a rather more fundamental barrier to enforcement than anything we are discussing here.

I don't know if anyone else experiences the same phenomenon, but I have a habit of seeing multiple instances of the same/similar misdemeanours on the road in clusters. This week it has been tailgating and mobile phone use by drivers with small children in their vehicles.

Deastons

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think it depends on what you mean by "speed", and what you mean by "kills".

I've always seen that to mean that excessive speed will increase the chances of an accident and the chance of someone being killed in the accident.

Speed increases stopping distances and decreases reaction times in relation to the surroundings, so increase the chance of having an accident.

The faster a vehicle is going, the more damage it will do and therefore the greater chance of injury or death to either the occupants of the car or any member of the public.

Cornucopia wrote: »

motorways are both the fastest and safest roads we have.

Motorways are not safer because the cars are driving at a higher speed. They are safer because they are much more isolated, reducing the chances of an accident occuring. They aren't flanked by houses, have roundabouts and junctions, and the chance of a small child running across the carriageway is almost zero.

Motorways may statistically the safest road to drive on, but they're the most dangerous road to break-down on.

Deastons

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is virtually no road policing where I live, and I see that as a rather more fundamental barrier to enforcement than anything we are discussing here.

Totally agree with you here. The chances of you being caught for speeding/chatting on a mobile etc by a police officer are greatly reduced. In fact, I'm amazed anyone gets caught speeding considering cameras are painted bright yellow and even modern sat navs warn you of their locations.

But the lack of policing is an altogether different argument. The majority want to pay less tax, but see more money go into the NHS. They don't want their local library to close, but claim only one person lives in their house so they pay reduced council tax. They complain that their child's school is overcrowded, but when their builder says they can do them a deal for cash, they rush off to an ATM.

Something has to give.

(On a random side-note of people's odd morals, some friends of ours were burgled recently. A few weeks later we were with them at their local pub when the landlord offered them a box of 12 bottles of wine that had "fallen off the back of a lorry" for £50. They took the offer and then turned to me and said "How can you argue with £50 for 12 bottles?" completely unaware of the irony.)

Cornucopia

Deastons wrote: »

I've always seen that to mean that excessive speed will increase the chances of an accident and the chance of someone being killed in the accident...

In the sense purely of the physics involved, yes to severity (with the caveat that most accidents involve some kind of attempted avoidance), not sure about causation. We already know that the causes of accidents are not generally about the physics. Also, in terms of an overall understanding of risk, I'm sure I'm not alone in having had about 8 years since my last road collision, and that was being struck from behind whilst stationary. In that sense, my risk factor was being stationary, not speed at all. Overall, then, a driver like me might cover 100,000 miles or more between genuinely risky situations, such that the relevance of arguments about physics applies to a vanishingly small proportion of the time.

I'm also not convinced that when the Powers That Be publicise "speed kills" or similar messages, that what they really mean is "speed or speeding (we're not clear on that) kills in that the physics of driving might mean that driving fast (whatever that means) is more likely to cause an accident (in the sense of it being not the actual cause, but some kind of exacerbating factor, maybe) and may increase the severity of an accident once it has become inevitable (even though most accidents involve some attempt at avoidance by one or some of the parties and therefore inevitability is highly dependent on driver skill and the exact circumstances)".

Sounds like a bit of a mouthful.

Motorways are not safer because the cars are driving at a higher speed. They are safer because they are much more isolated, reducing the chances of an accident occuring. They aren't flanked by houses, have roundabouts and junctions, and the chance of a small child running across the carriageway is almost zero.

Indeed, but this is to somewhat miss my point. Motorways (the fastest roads) are also the safest. Therefore speed in that context does not "kill". Yes, there are other factors in play, however the "message" makes no reference to them, and "Speed Kills except on Motorways" might be a bit counterproductive.

Motorways may statistically the safest road to drive on, but they're the most dangerous road to break-down on.

Broken down? So they are dangerous to be stationary on. The exact opposite of "speed kills"?

Stoke

Deastons wrote: »

I should have been more clear to prevent confusion. When I mention me driving at 20mph, I mean in a 20 zone. I agree that people driving too slow can be just as dangerous. The other day there was someone in the middle lane of the motorway doing around 30mph completely oblivious to the havoc they were causing.

It brings me back to the whole "In 50 years of driving I've never been in a crash, but I've seen a few in my rear view mirror".

reeac

Cornucopia wrote: »

In the sense purely of the physics involved, yes to severity (with the caveat that most accidents involve some kind of attempted avoidance), not sure about causation. We already know that the causes of accidents are not generally about the physics. Also, in terms of an overall understanding of risk, I'm sure I'm not alone in having had about 8 years since my last road collision, and that was being struck from behind whilst stationary. In that sense, my risk factor was being stationary, not speed at all. Overall, then, a driver like me might cover 100,000 miles or more between genuinely risky situations, such that the relevance of arguments about physics applies to a vanishingly small proportion of the time.




Broken down? So they are dangerous to be stationary on. The exact opposite of "speed kills"?

As you are so fond of quoting physics you will be aware of the concept of relative velocity. Apply that to your break down case and although the broken down vehicle is stationary the closing velocity, which will be the relevant quantity as regards severity of damage will still be around 70 mph.

Deastons

Cornucopia wrote: »

Broken down? So they are dangerous to be stationary on. The exact opposite of "speed kills"?

Too long, didn't read. I'm trying to understand your position, but your flippant comments are making it tricky.

In short, I believe people should stick to the speed limits. What are you saying? People should be able to drive at any speed they wish?

Stoke

Deastons wrote: »

Too long, didn't read. I'm trying to understand your position, but your flippant comments are making it tricky.

In short, I believe people should stick to the speed limits. What are you saying? People should be able to drive at any speed they wish?

I've not taken that from his comments whatsoever He seems to be suggesting that the motto "speed kills" isn't really honest or truthful.