Driving: the Speed Debate.

Pygmalion

A speed debate eh?
I think we all know that speed doesn't kill, decelerating to below 50 miles/hour is the real killer.

sock puppet

sock puppet wrote: »

There never will be any evidence though as it's difficult to prove without a suicide note.

Why assume it's suicide in the majority of cases when there are many people who would just drive fast to get a buzz. I think assuming that more people would drive fast with an aim to killing themselves than people would drive fast for recreation is a bad one to make.

Midnight_EG wrote: »

I'll get into this again at a later time, I'd like to see how this fares between you two atm :]



Conor, just for the record, do you drive at all...?

No, I don't drive. I won't be able to afford insurance or an actual car for quite some time. When I did get into a car, I found my constant day-dreaming to be a bit of a problem. :P I've nothing against cars though - I love going for a spin at night with someone.

Neon-Circles wrote: »

Yes, but thats not entirely practical. If thats the case we'd all be driving at 30kph. On every road.

No, I meant the current speed-limit system requires some people to drive a little slower than they would like.
In the case of the road you mentioned, if there really are no entries and it's 50 kph, then that's laughable. Claiming speed limits in particular areas should be revised is not the same as saying that speeding isn't dangerous though.

Insect Overlord

Neon-Circles wrote: »

"Speeding" is classified as me driving at 80kph on a massive huge open road in Limerick that has a 50kph limit because its in a "built up" area, despite that there are no entrances etc onto said road.

Do you mean the Condell Road in Limerick, or is there another one in a different part of the city with a similarly ridiculous speed limit?

Deleted User wrote: »

In the case of the road you mentioned, if there really are no entries and it's 50 kph, then that's laughable.

If it's the road I'm thinking of, my sister received a Grade 2 fault there during her driving test. She was driving just under the 50 km/h limit and the instructor had to fault her for not maintaining sufficient progress along the route. The limit there is crazy.

highlydebased

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Do you mean the Condell Road in Limerick, or is there another one in a different part of the city with a similarly ridiculous speed limit?

Yeah the Condell Road......funnily, Was doing 80 down it yesterday morning and saw the Gardai come up behind me, decided I better slow down a bit, they lads got pissed off and overtook me in the Bus Lane then sped off away!
Theres a few other roads......Old Cratloe Road also (80 kph after the bridge when the road gets smaller!)

The_D_Man

I crashed an old jeep today, turned it upside down into a 10 foot dike. It wasnt on a road thank god but still, definitely the scariest moment of my life. Thats the last time I sit into a car for a very long time, I may sound paranoid but motorvehicles truly are frightening.

Davidius

It's obvious that by speeding you're giving yourself less time to react to hazards. I know lots of drivers like to think they're great and that they can react to hazards instantaneously but sometimes you need to assess whether your confidence is really warranted or not. Even so a lapse in concentration is more likely to be detrimental in the event of danger if you're travelling faster.

Speeding on long and wide straight roads is relatively safe in comparison to roads filled with bends or built up areas with people about. People, animals or some eejit who can't drive for shít could pop out of nowhere. I don't see how it's unreasonable to ask that you keep within the speed limit.

If you don't like certain speed limits that's fair enough. Maybe you should petition to have them changed. You still need to stay within the limit unless it clearly is too dangerous.

sock puppet

Deleted User wrote: »

Why assume it's suicide in the majority of cases when there are many people who would just drive fast to get a buzz. I think assuming that more people would drive fast with an aim to killing themselves than people would drive fast for recreation is a bad one to make.

I didn't say that. But arguing over how many of them actually are suicides is pointless as there isn't any proof one way or the other. All we know is that some people commit suicide this way and that number is almost certainly far higher than is recorded. It's all just speculation

randylonghorn

Deleted User wrote: »

Why assume it's suicide in the majority of cases ....

I certainly don't believe it's the majority of cases, but there is a lot of (admittedly somewhat subjective and anecdotal) evidence to suggest that it happens too often ... not something which is easy to get empirical evidence for, unfortunately.

However (for example) when you hear of a 20 year old who lost his job a month ago, and split with his girlfriend shortly afterwards, driving straight into a tree at speed on a corner ... when the evidence suggests that he didn't even attempt to steer the car round the corner despite it being a road he drives every day ... when his friends speak quietly in corners of how depressed he was recently, and change the subject rapidly when anyone they don't know comes into earshot ... what would you think?

I think it is chosen as a method sometimes out of a duality of personal shame and concern for family /friends. "I don't want people to know / I don't want to be remembered as that guy who couldn't cope and suicided / I don't want my family to have the extra grief and guilt."

Deleted User wrote: »

If the RSA counted suicides as accidents, the road death statistics would be higher.

So as it happens, it does the opposite of suiting their campaigns. :pac:

I think the point is that when it happens, it is usually listed as "accident" because (a) it is difficult to *prove* otherwise and (b) out of respect for the family and friends. So yes, I do think that some of the accidents listed by the RSA do fall into this category.

Banjo Fella

As others have said very well, speeding makes it much less likely that you'll survive should some horrible accident occur while driving. If disaster strikes you probably won't be able to avoid it irrespective of how skilled you think you are. There just won't be any time to react.

If you're really hurtling along some narrow, ill-maintained country road and you meet a car as you round a corner and it's positioned wider and travelling faster than you had expected it would be... well, none of you are likely to survive.

Exercising common sense and driving within your own limits will keep you quite safe on the road, but accidents can and do happen in cruel but commonplace ways. A small reduction in your speed can make a huge, potentially life-saving difference to the forces incurred when a car's momentum is smashed to a halt like that.

Also, RIP, those who died in that horrible crash. Hope their friends and family can heal and move on in time.

SarahBeep!

Being totally honest, I don't think it comes down to;

-speed
-quality of road
-layout of road
-power of car

but the driver and how much you trust them. My Dad for example, I'd trust him to drive wild bendy country roads with a blindfold on. Whereas some other people? I don't even like getting into a car with certain people. It's all about competency.

Slightly OT, but I've been on the autoban and it's Darg-Race straight. Slip roads and bends are few and far between and trucks and HGV's have their own lane, it's far superior to here. No way in hell should any of the Irish motorways be 300kph.

**Timbuk2**

I still think doing anything over 200km/hr on those German autobahns is absolute madness. The tyres heat up a lot at that speed and the chance of a blowout at that speed is increased - and at that speed there isn't much you can do if you get a blowout, chances are you will crash, possibily colliding with others cars before you do.

Also, cars going that fast are using a ridiculous amount of fuel, due to the very high level of wind resistance at that speed. A car going 130km/hr will use less fuel to travel x km than a car going 200km/hr, even though it will take the first car longer.

challengemaster

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

I still think doing anything over 200km/hr on those German autobahns is absolute madness. The tyres heat up a lot at that speed and the chance of a blowout at that speed is increased - and at that speed there isn't much you can do if you get a blowout, chances are you will crash, possibily colliding with others cars before you do.

If you get a blow out or crash above X speed in any case, you're in serious crap. Taking X+n for any case is grand, 200km/h for example. Great for saying "at this speed...." but if a majority of Irish drivers got a blow out at 120, they'd be in just as much trouble.

Same as if you crash into something at 120, you'll probably die. adding whatever amount to that to try counter-argue speeding doesn't make sense tbh. You'll die at X speed, so how is X+n again different? It's not like you die MORE in the second case.

Also, cars going that fast are using a ridiculous amount of fuel, due to the very high level of wind resistance at that speed. A car going 130km/hr will use less fuel to travel x km than a car going 200km/hr, even though it will take the first car longer.

I'm fairly sure if anyone driving that fast really cared about that, they'd either get a diesel or not do that speed. Simple really...

**Timbuk2**

Hmm, while I see what your saying, it doesn't fully make sense.

Yes if you die at X speed you will die at X+n speed.

But again, it is much more possible to survive at 120km/h than it is at 200km/h - even if a crash at 120km/h can be very serious. At 120km/h, on a wide road, there is a slim chance that you could get the car under some control, or even just reduce speed enough to slow down the impact.

Remember, at x+n speed, you have less time to alter speed/position/direction to avoid/lessen a crash. To make it simple, imagine that braking hard is the best way to avoid a crash. It would take Time 1 to brake hard from x+n to x km/h, and Time 2 to brake hard from x -> final speed (hopefully 0). This extra time could be the difference between collision or no collision, and can also be the difference between broken elbow and death.

the_syco

challengemaster wrote: »

You may have overlooked this gem.
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/He-drives-she-dies/

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when it says

89.7% of alcohol related crashes involved male drivers.

means if the other driver was a drunk woman and crashed into the male driver, the male driver is the one that is added to their statistics?

Deleted User wrote: »

And I just saw your point about suicides there. Tbh, you're only conjecturing that people who die due to speed are deliberately trying to kill themselves. Some are, probably, but there's no evidence to suggest that anywhere near a majority do.

A point was once made that people crashing into walls, trees, etc, after veering off a straight road at high speed when they were the sole occupant in the car, whilst sober, should be looked at as possible suicides.

In the same way that suicides in the past (person found hanging from a tree, etc, in Ireland) were listed as "accidents" so that they would not be denied entrance to heaven by the catholic church.

Banjo Fella wrote: »

If you're really hurtling along some narrow, ill-maintained country road and you meet a car as you round a corner and it's positioned wider and travelling faster than you had expected it would be... well, none of you are likely to survive.

Agreed. Was gripping the wheel in sheer terror, as opposed to beeping the horn) as the blonde curly headed f**ker in the middle of the road went to their side of the road just in time a few weekends ago in Westmeath.

challengemaster

the_syco wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when it says

means if the other driver was a drunk woman and crashed into the male driver, the male driver is the one that is added to their statistics?

I certainly wouldn't put it past them tbh. Anything to skew "stats" in their favour.

Ironically enough, The latest big crash - two female drivers and a male passenger.

challengemaster

challengemaster wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't put it past them tbh. Anything to skew "stats" in their favour.

Ironically enough, The latest big crash - two female drivers and a male passenger.

Just to interject, because this is annoying me - stats don't get skewed. Interpretations of them do. They don't invent the statistics.

Carry on.

challengemaster

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to interject, because this is annoying me - stats don't get skewed. Interpretations of them do. They don't invent the statistics.

Carry on.

You're saying, that by adding male drivers who were not responsible in crashes to statistics in the way syco pointed out, that they're not being skewed or wrongly recorded?

randylonghorn

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to interject, because this is annoying me - stats don't get skewed. Interpretations of them do. They don't invent the statistics.

You're right in principle.

But the way stats are collected can skew them, just as the way they are interpreted can.

In any piece of research, what questions are asked and how they're asked can have a major impact on the results. How the results are interpreted is the second point at which distortion can occur.

Yes, but the stats aren't faked, is my point.
Saying the whatever percentage of crashes involved male drivers is not false.
Clearly it is not the same as saying whatever percentage of crashes is caused by male drivers, or that the drivers were male, but they are not giving out statistics that are wrong, they're just giving out statistics that are irrelevant.

A proper statistical analysis to an appropriate degree of confidence doesn't exist, so we can't prove or disprove young male drivers being more likely to crash. I'm pointing this out, because the fact that the RSA have misrepresented the information seems to be used to derail the idea that speeding makes crashes more likely, which is based on theoretical reasoning backed up by our wonderful laws of physics and which needs no statistical justification.

Tragedy

A few points;
Dublin, is statistically by far the safest place to drive in Ireland.
Dublin, is the most expensive place to get insurance in Ireland.

52% of fatal collisions involving two vehicles were as a result of one of the cars being on the wrong side of the road.

Only 15% were due to "Exceeded safe speed limit"(and please note, that does not mean that they exceeded the legal limit)

59% of fatal collisions occured on a straight(with 14% of road type not listed)

I'm trying to find it on my harddrive, but I had an RSA/AGS piechart showing that, according to AGS, only 5-7% of collisions had speed as a primary contributing factor.


There's plenty of dangerous and deadly driving to see day in day out as a driver, it's very rare that it's speeding.