Why is speeding socially acceptable?

Herzlos

Tarambor wrote: »

The biggest factor by far was driver error at 49%.

That's a tricky one though; how many of the driver error cases had speed as a factor, where the error wouldn't have happened if they were going slower, or they'd have been able to correct it better if they were going slower?
You could argue that apart from fluke accidents (like falling trees), most accidents are due to driver error. But going faster makes a driver error more likely to turn into an accident.


Fail to spot a parked car at 30 and you can maybe swerve and dodge it. Failing to spot the same car at 40 might mean you don't have time to swerve, or it's a wilder swerve.

Nearly miss a junction and slam on the brakes to get round it? Easier at 30 than 40.
Misjudged the size of a gap in the motorway? More likely to be able to get away with it at 70 than 90.

System

Herzlos wrote: »

That's a tricky one though; how many of the driver error cases had speed as a factor, where the error wouldn't have happened if they were going slower, or they'd have been able to correct it better if they were going slower?

I've already told you, 5%. If it was a factor it would be reported in the accident investigation. If it wasn't then it wouldn't. Accident investigations don't just list one contributing cause, they'll list as many as they need to.

sevenhills

Guerillatoker wrote: »

I see people hogging the middle lane on a daily basis tbh. If you are driving a large vehicle and you cannot safely change lanes then just stay in the left hand lane. Changing lanes shouldn't be difficult for a license holder.

Doesn't the 'driving manual' say that you should not cause others to brake/slow down? In which case people should not change lanes so often.
Changing lanes 'safely' is easy, but is it ok to force those behind to brake?

Mercdriver

Tarambor wrote: »

I've already told you, 5%. If it was a factor it would be reported in the accident investigation. If it wasn't then it wouldn't. Accident investigations don't just list one contributing cause, they'll list as many as they need to.

This 5% is that the number of accidents where the parties were over the speed limit? Or cases including speed too high for conditions. You are using the element as bluntly as a speed camera does. Many accidents could be avoided if vehicles were driving less quickly, over the limit or not.

If you have more time to correct an error, then you can avoid an incident. I don't think it is as simple as you make out.

cubegame

Two points.

If you speed regularly and never get caught, you're probably a good and observant enough driver to react to anything that the road can throw at you.

A lot of speeding wouldn't be necessary if 95% of the drivers on the road actually "made progress" when they can; instead of driving like scared and terrified loons.

Norman_Castle

cubegame wrote: »

Two points.

If you speed regularly and never get caught, you're probably a good and observant enough driver to react to anything that the road can throw at you.

A lot of speeding wouldn't be necessary if 95% of the drivers on the road actually "made progress" when they can; instead of driving like scared and terrified loons.

Another two points,


If you think you are a good enough driver to react to anything that the road can throw at you then you've got a lot to learn.


Speeding isn't necessary. Its just how people choose to drive.

Herzlos

Tarambor wrote: »

I've already told you, 5%. If it was a factor it would be reported in the accident investigation. If it wasn't then it wouldn't. Accident investigations don't just list one contributing cause, they'll list as many as they need to.

No, that 5% is "driver was going too fast". But how many of the "driver wasn't paying attention" incidents would have been avoided if one of the drivers was going slower?

consumers_revenge

cubegame wrote: »

If you speed regularly and never get caught, you're probably a good and observant enough driver to react to anything that the road can throw at you.

How on earth are they related?

Youre just playing a numbers name that the mobile speed van isn't round the next corner ( they haven't got millions of vans you know? )


You come round that bend or over that dip and their hidden ( and this is where they do hide ) doesn't matter if your jenson button....you'd be caught

Mercdriver

Not getting caught isn't necessarily about being observant. Remember that the police/SCP don't need to be visible and can hide behind a car or disguise their van as a horse box. Much of it is about luck too.

John_G_Jones

agrinnall wrote: »

I'm not sure why you are finding it so difficult to understand that that's not the point that is being made. The point is that an accident occurring at high speed is considerably more likely to lead to death and injury for anyone involved than an accident at a low speed. It's simple physics.

It really is not. The places where I do high speeds don’t have anything hard to hit that would cause a sudden stop. The places where I do low speed are littered with them.

Motorbikers, for example, tend to suffer worse injuries coming off in a 30 limit where they tend to hit road furniture or cars than they would on a track where they just slide and roll a bit.

There are a lot of people here desperate to claim that high speeds are dangerous, with really no evidence other than their own opinion to back it up.

Motorways are safer than A roads which are safer than B roads. These are facts, wanting the opposite to be true doesn’t make it so.