Speeding causes less than 9% of two vehicle road crashes

MagicSean · 21-09-2011 11:44AM

alias no.9 wrote: »

Some of the locations they are deployed are effective, many are blatant revenue generation excercises and no I'm not talking from bitter experience, I remain penalty points free since the introduction of penalty points. There has been a notable reduction in traffic patrols since the introduction of the speed vans.

This is the problem. You only know about crashes you read about in the paper. Not all crashes make the paper. There could be 100 material damage accidents on a stretch of road that you know nothing about. There could also be tonnes of complaints about speeding and dangerous driving in an area that you also know nothing about. I can only speak for my own division but every camera in it would seem to be in a good place.

As for the reduction in traffic patrols you notice. Would that not be more to do with the hundreds of Gardaí retiring than the speed vans?

MarkK · 21-09-2011 11:47AM

Nissan doctor wrote: »

But if two cars are perfectly safely doing 90kmh on a straight national road and one falls asleep or whatever and veers to the wrong side, then the impact will be 180kmh, very likely resulting in deaths. But to say speed was a factor in that accident is silly as neither were speeding.

So to prevent a death in that accident, the speed limit would have to be 20-25kmh so that any possible head on impact would be limited to 40-50kmh? That's just ridiculous IMO.

SpeedING (exceeding the speed limit) was not a factor but speed plainly was.
If both cars were doing 10 km/h when the collided rather than 90km/h it would have been a very different outcome wouldn't it?

In most real life cases, drivers brake to slow down, so do not hit at their driving speed. The speed they are going when they notice a hazard ahead will be a factor in whether they are able to stop in time, or at least slow down significantly, reducing the level of injury.

Speed may not be the cause of the accident, but the speed on impact determines how serious the injuries are.

Zubeneschamali · 21-09-2011 11:51AM

MarkK wrote: »

SpeedING (exceeding the speed limit) was not a factor but speed plainly was.

Right, and speed cameras/speed guns will do nothing whatever to help, since both cars were driven at legal speeds.

Nissan doctor · 21-09-2011 11:57AM

MarkK wrote: »

SpeedING (exceeding the speed limit) was not a factor but speed plainly was.
If both cars were doing 10 km/h when the collided rather than 90km/h it would have been a very different outcome wouldn't it?

In most real life cases, drivers brake to slow down, so do not hit at their driving speed. The speed they are going when they notice a hazard ahead will be a factor in whether they are able to stop in time, or at least slow down significantly, reducing the level of injury.

Speed may not be the cause of the accident, but the speed on impact determines how serious the injuries are.

Of course it would, but this logic is like saying if you were pushed off a building it was the ground that killed you, factually correct but the ground had nothing to do with the incident. Either way, its a mute point and one which can only be solved by restricting all cars to very low speeds, which makes driving pointless altogether.

Tragedy · 21-09-2011 12:00PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Do you really believe that this one table in a single Irish report for one year undermines the well-established finding in road safety research internationally that excess speed is a major factor both in the risk and severity of car crashes?

Do you believe that it undermines the international evidence for the effectiveness of speed surveillance?

I've studied thousands of pages of rsa/UK government reports on road accidents and death statistics. All of them broadly agree that statistically, exceeding the posted speed limit is only a contributor to a minority of cases.

Don't lie, thank you.

Crazy Horse 6 · 21-09-2011 12:26PM

The sooner all cars and motorbikes are limited to a top speed of 100klms an hour the better. Only police and emergency vehicles should exceed this speed.

KTRIC · 21-09-2011 12:29PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Speeding kills. End of.

So by your reasoning if I speed I die. Amazingly enough I'm here to type this post.

Speeding doesn't kill, the stopping kills you. A sudden and immediate deceleration of the human body causes it to crush itself.

sean1141 · 21-09-2011 12:30PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Speeding kills. End of.

so how come every racing car driver or person that has 2 or more points for speeding is not dead???

inappropriate speed kills. there are back roads around here that have 80kph limits and there is no way possible to drive at near that speed with any degree of safety... someone doing 150kph on the motorway is less likely to have a crash than someone doing 80kph in 50kph zone in a busy town..

speed is a factor in all crashes but then again 1kph is a speed:p

Nissan doctor · 21-09-2011 12:32PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

The sooner all cars and motorbikes are limited to a top speed of 100klms an hour the better. Only police and emergency vehicles should exceed this speed.

And the sooner that all human freedom of independant thought and decision making is removed by the health and safety communists then the world will be safer.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Are Police and emergency service vehicles are not driven by humans just like every other vehicle on the road?

Atomic Pineapple · 21-09-2011 12:32PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

The sooner all cars and motorbikes are limited to a top speed of 100klms an hour the better. Only police and emergency vehicles should exceed this speed.

The problem is the people in charge actually listen to ridiculous ideas like that.

fearcruach · 21-09-2011 01:04PM

I think that the main cause of fatalities is poor driver education/lack of observation.

I've had three near misses since I started driving six months ago. All of them were lack of observation on behalf of the other driver. Changing lanes without indicating, Driving straight across a roundabout cutting lanes. That happened twice.

Before I passed my driving test, my fails were on observation. Two of my mates failed on observation as well. It's really being drilled in how important it is, and after being out driving now, I can really see why.

It's not speed that is causing the majority accidents, it's idiots who don't know the rules of the road and never look around them before performing dangerous manoeuvres.

SV · 21-09-2011 01:08PM

Why are people feeding the troll?

tmcw · 21-09-2011 01:15PM

SV wrote: »

Why are people feeding the troll?

I agree, these threads are as useful as fog-light threads.

Nissan doctor · 21-09-2011 01:22PM

SV wrote: »

Why are people feeding the troll?

tmcw wrote: »

I agree, these threads are as useful as fog-light threads.

Is part of the point of a forum not to debate/discuss various issues?

So far there has been none of the usual pointless comments or personal insults that usually come in so I don't see the problem so far.

Scotty # · 21-09-2011 01:22PM

Tragedy wrote: »

I've studied thousands of pages of rsa/UK government reports on road accidents and death statistics. All of them broadly agree that statistically, exceeding the posted speed limit is only a contributor to a minority of cases.

...but speed is still a factor in 100% of cases! The outcome of ALL collisions is determined by the speed that one or more of the vehicles was travelling. That's a fact.

Lower speed generally means less severe impact, less injuries, and so on. Regardless of whether that speed was within the limit or not.

puzzle factory · 21-09-2011 01:24PM

Nissan doctor wrote: »

But if two cars are perfectly safely doing 90kmh on a straight national road and one falls asleep or whatever and veers to the wrong side, then the impact will be 180kmh, very likely resulting in deaths. But to say speed was a factor in that accident is silly as neither were speeding.

no its not,if there both doing 90kph then the impact is 90kph

Nissan doctor · 21-09-2011 01:26PM

puzzle factory wrote: »

no its not,if there both doing 90kph then the impact is 90kph

Might I suggest some physics lessons?

SV · 21-09-2011 01:26PM

I'm talking about the guy who's just throwing out things to rile people up..
such as "Speeding kills. End of" and asking for all vehicles to be limited to 100km/h

seriously, he's not even replying to anyone, yet he's getting responses off you. Classical troll behaviour. It's quite easy to do y'know, despite what your views are.

Anyway, I think it's obvious normal citizens should be limited to 1litre engines cos it's obvious speed kills.
See?

puzzle factory wrote: »

no its not,if there both doing 90kph then the impact is 90kph

lol, yep. Physics lessons for you.

I.S.T. · 21-09-2011 01:28PM

Scotty # wrote: »

...but speed is still a factor in 100% of cases! The outcome of ALL collisions is determined by the speed that one or more of the vehicles was travelling. That's a fact.

Lower speed generally means less severe impact, less injuries, and so on. Regardless of whether that speed was within the limit or not.

Why are you stating the obvious? What is your solution? A nationwide blanket limit of 20kmh?

BTW, this thread is about the cause of crashes, not the outcome.

Nissan doctor · 21-09-2011 01:30PM

SV wrote: »

I'm talking about the guy who's just throwing out things to rile people up..
such as "Speeding kills. End of" and asking for all vehicles to be limited to 100km/h

seriously, he's not even replying to anyone, yet he's getting responses off you. Classical troll behaviour. It's quite easy to do y'know, despite what your views are.

Anyway, I think it's obvious normal citizens should be limited to 1litre engines cos it's obvious speed kills.
See?

lol, yep. Physics lessons for you.

Apologies, I though you ment that the OP was the troll:o

SV · 21-09-2011 01:31PM

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Apologies, I though you ment that the OP was the troll:o

God no, the OP is 100% right

puzzle factory · 21-09-2011 01:31PM

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Might I suggest some physics lessons?

http://mythbustersresults.com/mythssion-control for who?:)

SV · 21-09-2011 01:33PM

puzzle factory wrote: »

http://mythbustersresults.com/mythssion-control for who?:)

Impact speed is still 180km/h.

Scotty # · 21-09-2011 01:37PM

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Why are you stating the obvious? What is your solution? A nationwide blanket limit of 20kmh?

BTW, this thread is about the cause of crashes, not the outcome.

Your original question was why was speeding always the focus.

The answer is: because speed is always a factor. Not "Stop Signs" as you suggest in your OP.

...and yes, it is stating the obvious!

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Why then all the focus on speeding and speed cameras? Wouldn't we save more lives by teaching people to obey stop/yield signs?

I.S.T. · 21-09-2011 01:40PM

Scotty # wrote: »

Your original question was why was speeding always the focus.

The answer is: because speed is always a factor. Not "Stop Signs" as you suggest in your OP.

...and yes, it is stating the obvious!

It is not always a factor in the cause of the crash, only in 9% of them.

SV · 21-09-2011 01:41PM

Scotty # wrote: »

Your original question was why was speeding always the focus.

The answer is: because speed is always a factor. Not "Stop Signs" as you suggest in your OP.

...and yes, it is stating the obvious!

but if we forgot all the speeding campaigns and focused on getting people to obey stop signs and moving to the wrong side of the road then we can work with getting rid of 55% of RTAs.

Rather than 9%, nah?

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

It is not always a factor in the cause of the crash, only in 9% of them.

He's talking about even moving at all counting as speed. Nice little hole the 'speed kills' campaigners have found.

Nissan doctor · 21-09-2011 01:42PM

puzzle factory wrote: »

http://mythbustersresults.com/mythssion-control for who?:)

From that link:

"Although the total force was doubled by having two cars"

The theory of that article only applies if both cars were doing precisely 90kmh and were both of precisely the same mass etc. If one car is doing 100kmh and the other was doing 20kmh, newtons third law says that the people in the car that was doing 20kmh would have the vast majority of the force transferred to them, meaning they would come off worse.

MagicSean · 21-09-2011 01:47PM

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

It is not always a factor in the cause of the crash, only in 9% of them.

It's an inaccurate figure. I've mentioned before that these stats are based on Garda reports and Gardaí very rarely note speed as a factor if it is not the primary factor.

Nissan doctor · 21-09-2011 01:47PM

Scotty # wrote: »

Your original question was why was speeding always the focus.

The answer is: because speed is always a factor. Not "Stop Signs" as you suggest in your OP.

...and yes, it is stating the obvious!

So if thats the view, the only solution is do away with cars altogether, dig up all the roads etc etc and make everyone walk.

Oh no wait....walking pace is a speed too, so we might bump into each other, causing bruising.

We've solved it....star trek style beaming technology is the solution to road deaths!:rolleyes:

SV · 21-09-2011 01:48PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It's an inaccurate figure. I've mentioned before that these stats are based on Garda reports and Gardaí very rarely note speed as a factor if it is not the primary factor.

So it's grand to use statistics to justify higher insurance premiums for younger drivers and such but when it comes to this they don't count, right? :rolleyes:

Speeding causes less than 9% of two vehicle road crashes

Comments