The relative unimportance that speeding plays in road accidents

On 11/12/2016 17:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/12/2016 17:19, Nick wrote:
On 11/12/2016 16:38, wrote:


Yes an eye opener as to what the police and IAM think causes fatal
accidents. Of course both are car orientated groups.

What we should be interested in, is what policies reduce accidents and
allow other road users (particularly non motorists) to feel safer and
hence encouraged to use the roads.

That and the obvious major health benefit one that everyone knows is
true, banning diesel engines.

As Mayer Hillman said
'Saying Britain's roads are getting safer is like saying a shark
infested river is safe because people choose not to swim in it.'


I like that one.

yet despite the massive rise in road traffic death and injury falls year
on year, apart from cyclists of course (they choose to ignore all road
and sense rules, and of course, they race on the roads)

Hum! You seem to have totally missed the point of the analogy.

What do you think it means?

On 11/12/2016 15:22, wrote:

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 12:55:37 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

Unexpected findings emerged, not least the relative unimportance that
speeding plays in road accidents that kill six people each day in the
UK, leave 68 others seriously hurt and 535 with less serious injuries.

"It has been an eye-opener," says project manager Neil Greig, of the
IAM.

Enough said.

The IAM is not an authority on the subject, it has no legal status.
It is a private car spotters club.

I tend to agree with you on that.

There is no official "body of knowledge" on driving, despite the
activities of the IAM - and the police, who also sometimes lay claim to
being such an academic authority on the subject. There are no Chairs of
Driving at our universities.

You might as well seek 'knowledge' from the Apologists for Bad Driving.

I am as certain as one can be that neither the IAM nor the police (both
of whom have the best of intentions) are that.

The trouble is that there is no objective way of assessing "advanced
driving". All one can do is assess driving for lawfulness and to some
extent, for courtesy. And, one supposes for practical aspects such as
"making progress", though I am less convinced on that side of things.

On 11/12/2016 16:30, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 12:55:35 -0000, Bod wrote:

Unexpected findings emerged, not least the relative unimportance that
speeding plays in road accidents that kill six people each day in the
UK, leave 68 others seriously hurt and 535 with less serious injuries.

"It has been an eye-opener," says project manager Neil Greig, of the
IAM. "Not just in terms of what causes an accident but in terms of
dispelling some of the popular myths. For instance, if you look at
Government campaigns they seem to say that speed is the number one
problem. But illegal speeding – when drivers exceed the posted limit –
accounts for only 13.9 per cent of fatal accidents. A bigger cause [15.9
per cent] is going too fast for the conditions – entering a bend too
quickly, for instance – when you might well be under the actual speed
limit."

But the biggest cause of road accidents in the UK today? The statistics
are quite clear on this and it's "driver error or reaction". It's listed
by police as a factor in more than 65 per cent of fatal crashes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ts-happen.html


It's only an eye opener to ****wits like the IAM.

Somewhat to my surprise, I find myself in broad agreement with more than
one poster on that last point.

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 5:57:50 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/12/2016 17:19, Nick wrote:
On 11/12/2016 16:38, wrote:


Yes an eye opener as to what the police and IAM think causes fatal
accidents. Of course both are car orientated groups.

What we should be interested in, is what policies reduce accidents and
allow other road users (particularly non motorists) to feel safer and
hence encouraged to use the roads.

That and the obvious major health benefit one that everyone knows is
true, banning diesel engines.

As Mayer Hillman said
'Saying Britain's roads are getting safer is like saying a shark
infested river is safe because people choose not to swim in it.'


I like that one.

yet despite the massive rise in road traffic death and injury falls year
on year, apart from cyclists of course

This could have been a valid point for an adult discussion.

(they choose to ignore all road
and sense rules, and of course, they race on the roads)

But you had to add this childish comment.

On 11/12/2016 18:12, wrote:

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 5:57:50 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/12/2016 17:19, Nick wrote:
On 11/12/2016 16:38, wrote:

Yes an eye opener as to what the police and IAM think causes fatal
accidents. Of course both are car orientated groups.
What we should be interested in, is what policies reduce accidents and
allow other road users (particularly non motorists) to feel safer and
hence encouraged to use the roads.
That and the obvious major health benefit one that everyone knows is
true, banning diesel engines.

As Mayer Hillman said
'Saying Britain's roads are getting safer is like saying a shark
infested river is safe because people choose not to swim in it.'

I like that one.

yet despite the massive rise in road traffic death and injury falls year
on year, apart from cyclists of course

This could have been a valid point for an adult discussion.

(they choose to ignore all road
and sense rules, and of course, they race on the roads)

But you had to add this childish comment.

Why don't you simply address what he says?

Have an adult discussion about it.

Are you claiming, for instance, that he is wrong in his complaint about
cyclists (not every last one of them, but more than half and in any
case, far too many) ignoring the law and the rules of the road?

But best be careful how you answer.

It must be tempting to immediately deny that cyclists do any such thing
and to claim that they are all angels (well, perhaps not every last one
of them, but most).

But that would be a plainly incorrect and even childish response -
wouldn't it?

On 11/12/2016 18:01, Nick wrote:
On 11/12/2016 17:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/12/2016 17:19, Nick wrote:
On 11/12/2016 16:38, wrote:


Yes an eye opener as to what the police and IAM think causes fatal
accidents. Of course both are car orientated groups.

What we should be interested in, is what policies reduce accidents and
allow other road users (particularly non motorists) to feel safer and
hence encouraged to use the roads.

That and the obvious major health benefit one that everyone knows is
true, banning diesel engines.

As Mayer Hillman said
'Saying Britain's roads are getting safer is like saying a shark
infested river is safe because people choose not to swim in it.'


I like that one.

yet despite the massive rise in road traffic death and injury falls year
on year, apart from cyclists of course (they choose to ignore all road
and sense rules, and of course, they race on the roads)

Hum! You seem to have totally missed the point of the analogy.

What do you think it means?

Who are the people that choose not to swim? The car drivers? Lorry
drivers? Even cyclist numbers are increasing, so what are the 'ones
that choose not to swim'?

On 11/12/2016 18:07, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2016 16:30, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 12:55:35 -0000, Bod wrote:

Unexpected findings emerged, not least the relative unimportance that
speeding plays in road accidents that kill six people each day in the
UK, leave 68 others seriously hurt and 535 with less serious injuries.

"It has been an eye-opener," says project manager Neil Greig, of the
IAM. "Not just in terms of what causes an accident but in terms of
dispelling some of the popular myths. For instance, if you look at
Government campaigns they seem to say that speed is the number one
problem. But illegal speeding – when drivers exceed the posted limit –
accounts for only 13.9 per cent of fatal accidents. A bigger cause [15.9
per cent] is going too fast for the conditions – entering a bend too
quickly, for instance – when you might well be under the actual speed
limit."

But the biggest cause of road accidents in the UK today? The statistics
are quite clear on this and it's "driver error or reaction". It's listed
by police as a factor in more than 65 per cent of fatal crashes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ts-happen.html



It's only an eye opener to ****wits like the IAM.

Somewhat to my surprise, I find myself in broad agreement with more than
one poster on that last point.

So more training and inspection of that training would give improvements
in road safety.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 16:58:46 -0000, Colonel Edmund J. Burke wrote:

On 12/11/2016 4:55 AM, Bod wrote:
Unexpected findings emerged, not least the relative unimportance that
speeding plays in road accidents that kill six people each day in the
UK, leave 68 others seriously hurt and 535 with less serious injuries..

"It has been an eye-opener," says project manager Neil Greig, of the
IAM. "Not just in terms of what causes an accident but in terms of
dispelling some of the popular myths. For instance, if you look at
Government campaigns they seem to say that speed is the number one
problem. But illegal speeding – when drivers exceed the posted limit –
accounts for only 13.9 per cent of fatal accidents. A bigger cause [15.9
per cent] is going too fast for the conditions – entering a bend too
quickly, for instance – when you might well be under the actual speed
limit."

But the biggest cause of road accidents in the UK today? The statistics
are quite clear on this and it's "driver error or reaction". It's listed
by police as a factor in more than 65 per cent of fatal crashes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ts-happen.html


Speed is directly related to traffic accidents.
The fact that some bucky-toofed "research" in the UK suggests otherwise
is probably cause to suspect that so-called research.

You are correct, the slower you go, the more likely you are to doze off.

--
Drugs lead nowhere, but it's the scenic route.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 17:56:09 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 11/12/2016 13:46, Nick wrote:

On 11/12/2016 12:55, Bod wrote:

Unexpected findings emerged, not least the relative unimportance that
speeding plays in road accidents that kill six people each day in the
UK, leave 68 others seriously hurt and 535 with less serious injuries.

"It has been an eye-opener," says project manager Neil Greig, of the
IAM. "Not just in terms of what causes an accident but in terms of
dispelling some of the popular myths. For instance, if you look at
Government campaigns they seem to say that speed is the number one
problem. But illegal speeding – when drivers exceed the posted limit –
accounts for only 13.9 per cent of fatal accidents. A bigger cause [15.9
per cent] is going too fast for the conditions – entering a bend too
quickly, for instance – when you might well be under the actual speed
limit."

But the biggest cause of road accidents in the UK today? The statistics
are quite clear on this and it's "driver error or reaction". It's listed
by police as a factor in more than 65 per cent of fatal crashes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ts-happen.html

Yes an eye opener as to what the police and IAM think causes fatal
accidents. Of course both are car orientated groups.

That's a departure, because posters here in the past have been eager to
cite what the police judge to be the greater and lesser causes of
traffic accidents.

Perhaps, like of a lot of cources for statistice, they're only of any
value when they say what you wanted them to say?

Just a suggestion.

What we should be interested in, is what policies reduce accidents and
allow other road users (particularly non motorists) to feel safer and
hence encouraged to use the roads.

That and the obvious major health benefit one that everyone knows is
true, banning diesel engines.

What should be done with all that unused diesel (around 25% - 30% of the
average crude oil by volume, IIRC)?

On that note, am I correct in thinking they stupidly just burn off propane?

--
Basketball analyst: "He dribbles a lot and the opposition doesn't like it. In fact you can see it all over their faces."

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:07:16 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 11/12/2016 15:22, wrote:

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 12:55:37 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

Unexpected findings emerged, not least the relative unimportance that
speeding plays in road accidents that kill six people each day in the
UK, leave 68 others seriously hurt and 535 with less serious injuries.

"It has been an eye-opener," says project manager Neil Greig, of the
IAM.

Enough said.

The IAM is not an authority on the subject, it has no legal status.
It is a private car spotters club.

I tend to agree with you on that.

There is no official "body of knowledge" on driving, despite the
activities of the IAM - and the police, who also sometimes lay claim to
being such an academic authority on the subject. There are no Chairs of
Driving at our universities.

You might as well seek 'knowledge' from the Apologists for Bad Driving.

I am as certain as one can be that neither the IAM nor the police (both
of whom have the best of intentions) are that.

The trouble is that there is no objective way of assessing "advanced
driving". All one can do is assess driving for lawfulness and to some
extent, for courtesy. And, one supposes for practical aspects such as
"making progress", though I am less convinced on that side of things.

The only accurate way would be to have stats on driving style, speed, and accident rates on a large number of people, with some kind of sensor arrangement in their cars.

--
"My professional and my personal lives have become way too intertwined," the stewardess told her fellow stew.
"Last night my husband nudged me awake, and began to make love.
Without giving it a thought I said, 'Welcome Aboard'."