Why do people who aren't speeding to begin with...

keefg

jmck87 wrote: »

There are many variables lads....I for one would rather a car travelling 60 kmph hit me than a 40 foot truck doing 30kmph!

Tis all relative....sure ask Einstein :pac:

I'd be even happier if both the feckers missed me

jmck87

keefg wrote: »

I'd be even happier if both the feckers missed me

Haha where's the fun in that?!

jacool

Until we accept driving as a privilege, not a right, we'll always have loads of accidents. We are one of the very few countries where what happened to me happened - I failed my test and was allowed drive home !! In Germany, they do over 30 lessons before being allowed sit their test.
The other main issue is that public transport is a joke (now try not blame all those crooked politicians like Charlie who screwed the country with money that could have gone into infratructure - i'm trying, i'm trying !) which leaves every Tom, Dick and Harry (even if most of them are dicks) with no option but to drive, even if they are blatantly breaking the learner laws. We never get to see driving as what it is, just a way of getting from A to B, and yes, quite usually as quickly as possible. With the amount of near misses I have everday on a 12-13 mile commute, I'd prefer to be able to use public transport as I did in the UK, but outside Dooblin, it ain't happening.

goose2002

beeno67 wrote: »

Great so I am saying that the more you speed the more you are likely to die in a crash. I back it up with evidence from 3 different countries. My point of view is backed up by just about every road safety organisation in the world yet you disagree, based on what? a feeling in your water or did your mate down the pub tell you or is it just that because you have never died in a crash I must be wrong.

Beeno67, Anyone can manipulate figures to make and point and if ever there was were a set of figures manipulated, its road accident stats and speed issues. If you wish to take your evidence from "3 different countries" as sacrilege then go ahead. I have also seen sources that say that accident rates went down in the USA with the raising of speed limits. Also with higher speed limits tend to make people focus more on the road ahead rather then the speedo. There will always be a number of who will ridiculaously speed whether there are higher limits or not. But you really shouldn't belief goverement figures above all else.
Widen your knowledge of the subject looking at all areas and you might be enlightened.

jmck87

jacool wrote: »

Until we accept driving as a privilege, not a right, we'll always have loads of accidents...

Who gives us this 'priviledge'? Do those that give it to us have it as a 'right'?

Until people accept they have a responsibility to not endanger other people's lives we'll always have road accidents....but I for one believe its my right to drive....

Edit - I agree with everything else you say - we are seriously lacking compared to other countries...

cpoh1

beeno67 wrote: »

Great so I am saying that the more you speed the more you are likely to die in a crash. I back it up with evidence from 3 different countries. My point of view is backed up by just about every road safety organisation in the world yet you disagree, based on what? a feeling in your water or did your mate down the pub tell you or is it just that because you have never died in a crash I must be wrong.

Aaaaaaahhhhhhh, holy mother of god :rolleyes:

Every fool and his dog knows that the faster you are travelling when you crash the more likelier you are to die in the collision. That has nothing to do with the fact that it is safer to drive faster on motorways than back roads with the result of less deaths. You are getting really confused with the speed factor instead of looking at the overall picture that results in road deaths. Road conditions, capability of the car and driver error are bigger factors than speed.

Show me some lovely evidence of yours where motorways with increased speed limits are more dangerous than your average A or B road. If you cant do that then STFU and GTFO of this thread and let it get back on topic. Just to clarify once more we are all aware that the more speed you carry into a collision results in likelier chances of death.

keefg

jacool wrote: »

Until we accept driving as a privilege, not a right,

jmck87 wrote: »

Who gives us this 'priviledge'? Do those that give it to us have it as a 'right'?

Hmm..I can't get my head around this "privilege" you mention jacool, would you care to explain.

I for one pay a feckin' fortune to buy and run my cars on our roads so I don't feel too privileged in that dept.

beeno67

cpoh1 wrote: »

Aaaaaaahhhhhhh, holy mother of god :rolleyes:

Every fool and his dog knows that the faster you are travelling when you crash the more likelier you are to die in the collision.

Then why were you arguing about it.

cpoh1 wrote: »

Road conditions, capability of the car and driver error are bigger factors than speed.

Road conditions and capability of car are bigger factors than spoeed. What complete bollocks. Where did you get that from.

cpoh1 wrote: »

Show me some lovely evidence of yours where motorways with increased speed limits are more dangerous than your average A or B road. If you cant do that then STFU and GTFO of this thread and let it get back on topic. Just to clarify once more we are all aware that the more speed you carry into a collision results in likelier chances of death.

Try reading my posts. I have now said 3 times that I know motorways have less accidents. However I have shown that "motorways with increased speed limits are more dangerous than your average" motorway. German autobahns with no speed limits have a 75% higher death rate than UK motorways. USA motorways had an increased death rate of 38% when they increased the speed limit. Why are you asking me for figures and not giving us yours?

beeno67

goose2002 wrote: »

Beeno67, Anyone can manipulate figures to make and point and if ever there was were a set of figures manipulated, its road accident stats and speed issues. If you wish to take your evidence from "3 different countries" as sacrilege then go ahead. I have also seen sources that say that accident rates went down in the USA with the raising of speed limits. Also with higher speed limits tend to make people focus more on the road ahead rather then the speedo. There will always be a number of who will ridiculaously speed whether there are higher limits or not. But you really shouldn't belief goverement figures above all else.
Widen your knowledge of the subject looking at all areas and you might be enlightened.

OK show me the figures I should believe

cpoh1

beeno67 wrote: »

Then why were you arguing about it.

I think you'll find you are the only person arguing that speed on motorways is a major factor in road deaths.

Find me some statistics where motorways in Ireland where the highest speeds are encountered are more dangerous than national A and B routes. If you cant then like I said STFU and piss off from this thread. Im sure im not the only one on here that thinks you're a complete tool.

Eoin

cpoh1 wrote: »

If you cant then like I said STFU and piss off from this thread. Im sure im not the only one on here that thinks you're a complete tool.

Week's ban for personal abuse.

keefg

eoin wrote: »

Week's ban for personal abuse.

Hands up all those who saw that coming?

beachlife

beeno67 wrote: »

Then why were you arguing about it.

Road conditions and capability of car are bigger factors than spoeed. What complete bollocks. Where did you get that from.



Try reading my posts. I have now said 3 times that I know motorways have less accidents. However I have shown that "motorways with increased speed limits are more dangerous than your average" motorway. German autobahns with no speed limits have a 75% higher death rate than UK motorways. USA motorways had an increased death rate of 38% when they increased the speed limit. Why are you asking me for figures and not giving us yours?

I think that's a very closed view to take,let me explain speed kills, if somebody goes out with there mates,goes to the pub has a load of pints, comes out in the lashing rain. jumps into the car,races a friend up the road and crashes off the road on a bend and hits a pole ,everybody dies . now lets say they hit the pole at 120km's or 100km's it doesn't matter there dead. Did the speed kill them??? or was it the drink?? or was it dangerous driving?? or the weather? ultimately the force(speed) of the impact killed them.SO they say it was speeding. Now let's say they were inside the speed limit (100 kmph) they would still be dead and the report would still say died from excessive speed for the road conditions. Lets not be foolish here, first we need to define speed is speeding going over the legal limit? or is speeding goning over walking pace?
why are planes and trains not banned for speeding?? if speed kills why have planes going at 500 miles per hour? okay they are not LIKELY to get into a crash but if they do crash at that speed you are more likely to be killed!!! if everybody paid attention when driving,instead of playing with the sat nav/keeping the kids quite/texting on the phone/looking at the ipod/taking drugs/drinking/and speeding then there would be no crashes at all!!!!

beachlife

so just to clarify. the drink killed that car driver!!! because the person was not in a condition to control a motor vehicle!!!! there perception of danger was lessened

Cabaal

steve06 wrote: »

I've been stuck in a line of traffic doing 90-100 on a 120 stretch of a 2 lane motorway because nobody would overtake a squad car that was cruising along below the speed limit. I don't get it!

What was stopping you overtaking?

Cabaal

Busta Hyman wrote: »

so does cocaine / smack and fags but your not picking on them are you.....

This is a thread about speed in general, when there's a thread about drink and fags then I'm sure people will pick on them then

Anan1

beachlife wrote: »

so just to clarify. the drink killed that car driver!!! because the person was not in a condition to control a motor vehicle!!!! there perception of danger was lessened

Not quite - if they had been going slower, they might have survived. Drink drivers hit poles/trees/walls all the time without killing anyone.;)

beachlife

Anan1 wrote: »

Not quite - if they had been going slower, they might have survived. Drink drivers hit poles/trees/walls all the time without killing anyone.;)

yes but what causes them to crash??? if they hit trees/poles/walls all the time then it is not the speed,but rather their inability to drive due to intoxication, the end result of the crash i.e if they live or die,is pure chance...did they wear there belt are they in a SAFE car,speed etc.... it would be childish to say that speed killed them, hitting an object killed them . bad decisions killed them.
So if all drink/drug/tired drivers slowed down we would all be okay???
I don't know why speed is been demonized ? 30kmph is a speed so is 120kmph
both are acceptable in certain road conditions

jacool

keefg wrote: »

Hmm..I can't get my head around this "privilege" you mention jacool, would you care to explain. I for one pay a feckin' fortune to buy and run my cars on our roads so I don't feel too privileged in that dept.

Money has as much relevance here as I think it should have had in Madonna getting that kid. Just because you have the money shouldn't mean that you think its a right. "Privilege" may have been the wrong word, but what I was trying to get at is that everyone thinks they should be able to just hop in a car and drive, which I disagree with. I think you should have to go through some sort of a procedure as in Germany with 30 lessons to show that you can drive a) during the day, b) in the dark, c) on motorways all of which they have to do. Here you can pass a test without lessons and head straight for the motorway without ever having driven on one before ! I'm going to end up confusing myself soon !

Anan1

beachlife wrote: »

yes but what causes them to crash??? if they hit trees/poles/walls all the time then it is not the speed,but rather their inability to drive due to intoxication, the end result of the crash i.e if they live or die,is pure chance...did they wear there belt are they in a SAFE car,speed etc.... it would be childish to say that speed killed them, hitting an object killed them . bad decisions killed them.
So if all drink/drug/tired drivers slowed down we would all be okay???
I don't know why speed is been demonized ? 30kmph is a speed so is 120kmph
both are acceptable in certain road conditions

Alcohol consumption has the dual effect of increasing reaction times and giving the driver a false sense of confidence. This leads to excessive speed for the conditions (including the condition of being inebriated) , resulting in the driver being unable to stop within the distance which they can see to be clear, and therefore crashing.

beeno67

beachlife wrote: »

So if all drink/drug/tired drivers slowed down we would all be okay???

Not necessarily ok but certainly a lot better off than we are now. If everyone kept to speed limit we could reasonably expect to save over 100 lives a year. (I would suggest the figure is nearer 200 but very few here seem to believe that). To put that in context it would be about double the amount of women who die from cervical cancer every year.

Anan1

beeno67 wrote: »

Not necessarily ok but certainly a lot better off than we are now. If everyone kept to speed limit we could reasonably expect to save over 100 lives a year. (I would suggest the figure is nearer 200 but very few here seem to believe that).

If everyone drove at a speed which would allow them to stop within the distance which they can see to be clear then i'd agree. Given the arbitrary nature of speed limits in this country, however, I don't always see the connection between speed limits and safe speeds.

goose2002

beeno67, here is a few articles you can read. They're not from overly recognisable sources so im sure you will not see it as reliable. But then again, Brake.org.uk ain't the best place to get your information from either.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/66124323.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa346.pdf

These article refer to the "Montana Experiment", which im sure is what you refer to in when talking about the USA. With the changing of the speed limit to a reasonable prudently speed, the initial increase in deaths could be attributed to a large increase in traffic, after which fatal accidents decreased to a low. The main thing is that when speed limits were brought back, the accident rate had a high for the couple of years after. Even when speed limits were brought back, it was because it was very difficult to define a safe and prudent speed, not because of deaths.

Your argument that slowing people down would save lives is relevant, but in the same way that if we stopped traffic altogether lives would be saved. The argument isn't practical and has its faults. In that case why get out of bed in the morning.

I'm not arguing that we don't need speed limits at all and I can only imagine what some people would be like on unrestricted roads. However with the raising of speed limits on some roads it removes the worry that a large amount of people, including myself have while driving which is getting fines or points for exceeding the speed limit accidentally on some roads. It can very easily happen, especially on motorways and dual carriageways that can easily take more then the limit. Removing this concentration from the speedo and possible traffic corp and adding it to the road ahead can only have benefits on our better roads.

beeno67

goose2002 wrote: »

beeno67, here is a few articles you can read. They're not from overly recognisable sources so im sure you will not see it as reliable. But then again, Brake.org.uk ain't the best place to get your information from either.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/66124323.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa346.pdf

These article refer to the "Montana Experiment", which im sure is what you refer to in when talking about the USA. With the changing of the speed limit to a reasonable prudently speed, the initial increase in deaths could be attributed to a large increase in traffic, after which fatal accidents decreased to a low. The main thing is that when speed limits were brought back, the accident rate had a high for the couple of years after. Even when speed limits were brought back, it was because it was very difficult to define a safe and prudent speed, not because of deaths.

Your argument that slowing people down would save lives is relevant, but in the same way that if we stopped traffic altogether lives would be saved. The argument isn't practical and has its faults. In that case why get out of bed in the morning.

I'm not arguing that we don't need speed limits at all and I can only imagine what some people would be like on unrestricted roads. However with the raising of speed limits on some roads it removes the worry that a large amount of people, including myself have while driving which is getting fines or points for exceeding the speed limit accidentally on some roads. It can very easily happen, especially on motorways and dual carriageways that can easily take more then the limit. Removing this concentration from the speedo and possible traffic corp and adding it to the road ahead can only have benefits on our better roads.

Thanks for the articles. As you say they are quite biased. Here is an article from the American Journal of Preventative Medicine
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7786388?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

They looked at speed limits in USA in period you are talking about and compared it to UK in similar time. In UK death rates dropped 38%, in US they dropped 6.5%. So what was the difference in two countries. USA as you say increased speed limits in lots of states while UK introduced huge numbers of speed cameras.

Another one from the Journal of Injury Prevention
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17567969?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Looked at how increasing speed limits in Isreal caused increased road deaths.

This one from The Journal of accident analysis and prevention

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7786388?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Looked at what hapened in Illinois when the speed limit increased from 55mph to 65mph. It led to 300 extra accidents a month

.
Obviously all these articles are from peer reviewed journals and would defend the fact that they are totally independent.

I agree that speed limits on roads are often not accurate but would say that more often the limit is too high rather than too high. Obviously gardai target certain easy targets on some roads and I agree this is just a money making exercise and a waste of time in terms of crash prevention. .