Should A Jail Sentence Be Imposed On Someone For Speeding?

Saab Ed

eyesofvenus wrote: »

Just a bit of maths but it seems to be 60%(3/5) over speed limit if my percentages in school was worth anything

And crashing your vehicle at 100km/h is one thing but at twice that speed, il leave you to imagine...

:rolleyes::cool:

100% of 50 = 50. 50+50=100 hence 50kmh over a 50kmh limit equals to 100kmh. What am I missing

And if you're gonna start correcting people then do the decent thing by a) getting the maths right and b) get a grown up to constuct your sentences properly

eyesofvenus

Saab Ed wrote: »

:rolleyes::cool:

100% of 50 = 50. 50+50=100 hence 50kmh over a 50kmh limit equals to 100kmh. What am I missing

And if you're gonna start correcting people then do the decent thing by a) getting the maths right and b) get a grown up to constuct your sentences properly

No you read it wrong, 60% is the 200km/h figure not 40% :rolleyes:
And also i was being sarcastic with my own math skills...so less of the bashing mate

Saab Ed

eyesofvenus wrote: »

so less of the bashing mate

Well you started it :D:D


>>>>>>>>>>>>next

Seth Brundle

Calm down, calm down

eyesofvenus

Saab Ed wrote: »

Well you started it :D:D


>>>>>>>>>>>>next

I merely put you right with your figures, no need go apesh1t
k but i still disagree with the maniac speeds, you see how bad our roads are, not even sure 120 is safe on certain parts of the m7

Tragedy

Only if the speed causes an accident.

kbannon wrote: »

I never mentioned motorways, did I?

Motorways are safer because there are no turn offs, no oncoming traffic (generally), good surfaces and overtaking possibilities.

These factors allow for the capability to drive faster. However, the fact is that if someone pulls out in front of you on a motorway and you are 50m behind them doing 120km/h there is less reaction time than compared to doing 100km/h etc.

What happens when you aquaplane at 120km/h on a motorway? Is the outcome the same when you are only doing 70km/h? What happens when you come across the same puddle at 10km/h?

However, move the road parameter over towards N roads and lower and speed definitely has an impact on the potential severity of an incident.

You never mentioned any type of road. You just said higher speed = higher potential for accidents.

You were wrong, and when that was pointed out, claimed you weren't talking about motorways.

A Motorway is where all 3 motorists that this topic is about were speeding.

I really don't get your tangent.

Seth Brundle

Tragedy wrote: »

You never mentioned any type of road. You just said higher speed = higher potential for accidents.

You were wrong, and when that was pointed out, claimed you weren't talking about motorways.

A Motorway is where all 3 motorists that this topic is about were speeding.

I really don't get your tangent.

I made a point which could be applied to all roads, not just motorways. I subsequently backed it up with examples which so far you have ignored. Answer my questions then please:

me wrote:

However, the fact is that if someone pulls out in front of you on a motorway and you are 50m behind them doing 120km/h there is less reaction time than compared to doing 100km/h etc.

Is this "wrong"?

me wrote:

What happens when you aquaplane at 120km/h on a motorway? Is the outcome the same when you are only doing 70km/h? What happens when you come across the same puddle at 10km/h?

well? Will the outcome be the same in all cases?

me wrote:

However, move the road parameter over towards N roads and lower and speed definitely has an impact on the potential severity of an incident.

well? Do you dispute this?

Tragedy

Only if the speed causes an accident.

kbannon wrote: »

I made a point which could be applied to all roads, not just motorways.

And I challenged your assertion on the basis that statistically motorways - the fastest roads - are the safest.

Obviously your point cant be applied to all roads, as if the potential increased with an increase in speed, the accident rate would likewise increase.

It doesn't, ergo your point is invalid when it comes to Motorways.

I subsequently backed it up with examples which so far you have ignored.

You didn't back it up, you posted examples you had thought of where increased speed could maybe, possibly lead to increased chances of an accident without posting any evidence to back it up.

Is this "wrong"?

No it isn't. However,
1) You are assuming that the distance between cars in metres remains constant regardless of speed
2) You are assuming that less reaction time automagically leads to more accidents.
If my reaction time to deal with something halves from 10 seconds to 5 seconds, there's no reason to believe that that will lead to an increase in accidents.
But your fuzzy logic is trying to use that idea.

well? Will the outcome be the same in all cases?

Stupid question. The question you should be asking is "Will the effect be the same in all cases?"

Find a report or statistics on aquaplaning accidents, argue with numbers and not possible outcomes in certain limited situations that suit your arguments.

well? Do you dispute this?

You've gone from arguing to safety, to arguing that even if a road is safer, at higher speed a less likely accident will be more damaging.

Do you want to step back and consider what point youre trying to make, instead of changing from post to post?


PS: An 2000 NRA report found that Dublin had the highest rate of vehicle accidents per 1,000 kilometres. Dublin also has the lowest average speed limit.

So, would you like to reconsider?

Seth Brundle

Tragedy wrote: »

And I challenged your assertion on the basis that statistically motorways - the fastest roads - are the safest.

Obviously your point cant be applied to all roads, as if the potential increased with an increase in speed, the accident rate would likewise increase.

It doesn't, ergo your point is invalid when it comes to Motorways.

So someone driving at 5km/h is as likely to be involved in a speed related incident as someone who is driving at 120km/h or 200km/h? The type of road is irrelevant under this. However, motorways are safer because they are directional with (in theory) no parked cars, no junctions, kids or animals.

Tragedy wrote: »

You didn't back it up, you posted examples you had thought of where increased speed could maybe, possibly lead to increased chances of an accident without posting any evidence to back it up.

ok 'back up' was a poor choice of phraseology by me.

Tragedy wrote: »

No it isn't. However,
1) You are assuming that the distance between cars in metres remains constant regardless of speed
2) You are assuming that less reaction time automagically leads to more accidents.
If my reaction time to deal with something halves from 10 seconds to 5 seconds, there's no reason to believe that that will lead to an increase in accidents.
But your fuzzy logic is trying to use that idea.

I'm not assuming anything. I made the point that the potential was increased. I did not state that there would be more incidents.

Tragedy wrote: »

Stupid question. The question you should be asking is "Will the effect be the same in all cases?"

Its not. Will the speed difference have a difference in the end result? Yes or no!

Tragedy wrote: »

Find a report or statistics on aquaplaning accidents, argue with numbers and not possible outcomes in certain limited situations that suit your arguments.

You've gone from arguing to safety, to arguing that even if a road is safer, at higher speed a less likely accident will be more damaging.

No I made the point that driving at a higher speed will increase the potential for an incident (given the same circumstances)

Tragedy wrote: »

Do you want to step back and consider what point youre trying to make, instead of changing from post to post?

I've stuck by my view that a higher speed will increase the potential. I have no reason to change.

Tragedy wrote: »

PS: An 2000 NRA report found that Dublin had the highest rate of vehicle accidents per 1,000 kilometres. Dublin also has the lowest average speed limit.

I'm not talking about speed limits or anyuthing like that. I am simply referring to the fact that if you drive at 100mph, you are more likely to be involved in some kind of incident than at 1km/h, etc.

Tragedy wrote: »

So, would you like to reconsider?

I've no need to.

Tragedy

Only if the speed causes an accident.

kbannon wrote: »

So someone driving at 5km/h is as likely to be involved in a speed related incident as someone who is driving at 120km/h or 200km/h?

Moving the goal posts again.

First it was accident, then it was injury, now it's speed related incident.

What exactly constitutes a speed related incident? How is it defined?

However, motorways are safer because they are directional with (in theory) no parked cars, no junctions, kids or animals.

Motorways are safer because they're designed for speed.

I'm not assuming anything. I made the point that the potential was increased.

You didn't make the point that the potential was increased.
You said the potential would be increased.

There's a massive gulf between the two things, a gulf seperated by the vast lack of any kind of evidence to back up your assertions.

I did not state that there would be more incidents.

Do you not understand what the word potential means?

Its not.

Yes it is.
What do you mean by the outcome? Personally, I've never heard or encountered someone who's had an accident - or "incident" as you're now calling it - due to aquaplaning.
So it seems that yes, the outcome is the same? It's a stupid question because you're asking possible outcomes of a situation that's not defined in any way.

What kind of road? What kind of tyres? How much thread is left? Is it on a corner? Is it aquaplaning on 1 tyre? 2? 4? Is the car RWD, FWD, 4WD? What kind of suspension does it have? Where exactly in the lane is the car? How wide are the lanes? What kind of run off does it have? Hard Shoulder?

I could go on for 10 minutes as to why your question is stupid.
I wont, I think I've fairly covered why it is now.

Will the speed difference have a difference in the end result? Yes or no!

Based on my own anecdotal evidence - no?

No I made the point that driving at a higher speed will increase the potential for an incident (given the same circumstances)

You made the point, I refuted it to the best of my ability, and you keep changing what your point is, what the circumstances are, the limited areas to apply your point, etc etc.

I've stuck by my view that a higher speed will increase the potential. I have no reason to change.

The fact that it's been proved that higher speed doesn't of a necessity increase the potential?
That little fact doesn't give you a reason to change?
I guess nothing will so.

I am simply referring to the fact

It isn't a fact. The opposite is actually a fact.

Do you need to have the word "fact" explained to you, like you do with "potential"?

that if you drive at 100mph, you are more likely to be involved in some kind of incident than at 1km/h, etc.

Which is why the area with lowest speed limits in Ireland has the highest accident rate per distance travelled?

Which is the direct opposite of the "fact" you state to be true and believe in?

I've no need to.

I see. My last reply to you.
Everything you've posted I've thoroughly refuted, and you keep changing your mind and posting baseless facts and changing the definition of words.
Enough!

Seth Brundle

I made the popint that the potential for an incident increases with speed. I never mentioned that speed alone would cause an incident (hence my speed related incident phrase) as most incidents are not due to one factor alone.
I completely appreciate the fact that motorways are designed for driving faster than conventional roads and I also pointed out some reasons why they are safer. However, using irish motorways as an example with drivers suddenly changing lanes without looking into mirrors, etc. there is an increased potential for something to happen (this is coupled with the fact that drivers have a longer reaction & braking time, etc).

Motorways tend to be safer also because of long unobstructed stretches with hard shoulders and drivers tending to keep a constant speed. However, look at he M7 two or so years ago when people drove in the fog at the motorway limit. Had they all driven significantly slower, then they might have survived.

Please bear in mind that I never suggested that speed alone would cause an incident which I think you believe I said!

Regarding aquaplaning, I have both witnessed and encountered aquaplaning. One way to overcome aqua/hydroplaning is to reduce speed. If one is doing 120km/h how far will they have skidded compared to doing 80km/h before they have slowed sufficiently to overcome it? What happens if there is a corner/turn 20m ahead?

A similar logic could also be applied to icy conditions - the faster you go the greater the potential for something to happen!

Going back to non-exceptional circumstances, what happens if you drive at 30km/h and a kid runs out in front of you? Assuming everything else remains the same, but you are driving at 80 or 100km/h and the same kid runs out what happens? Has the speed made a difference in the potential to flatten the kid?

Looking at motorways, if people

I'm not suggesting that a driver is more likely to aquaplane because of speed. However, the effect is more likely to have a negative impact 9especially when coupled with inexperienced Irish drivers).

Looking at some references:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11387&page=270 (can't copy but the conclusions sums it up)
non motorway research:

By working back from the risk estimates we have concluded that nearly half (46 per cent) of these free travelling speed casualty crashes probably would have been avoided, or reduced to non-casualty crashes, if none of the case vehicles had been travelling above the speed limit. A more conservative estimate, based on calculation of stopping distances and impact speeds, indicates that 29 per cent of crashes would have been avoided altogether, with a reduction of 22 per cent in the impact energy of the remaining cases.

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/exec.html

It was found that the risk of involvement in a
casualty crash doubled with each 5 km/h increase in free travelling speed above 60 km/h.
Hypothetical speed reductions applied to the case vehicles indicated large potential safety benefits from even small reductions in travelling speed, particularly on arterial roads.

http://vtrc.virginiadot.org/rsb/RSB16.pdf