Speeding causes less than 9% of two vehicle road crashes

Iwannahurl

SV wrote: »

but do you think my suggestion for marshmallow crash barriers was taken seriously? Nope.

Marshmallow cars would be better.

Nissan doctor

slimjimmc wrote: »

It is incorrect to add the speeds of both vehicles in a head-on collision and say the impact is equal to the sum of the speeds. As far as each car is concerned a head-on collision at 20kmh with another car is equivalent to a 20kmh head-on collision with a tree. Differences such as mass, velocity, structural rigidity and impact vector will have a minor effect though.

It has no basis in physics and has been disproved.
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html
Mythbusters episode

Post #58 in this thread has already answered this...


"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."

cyclopath2001

challengemaster wrote: »

Which do you think is more likely to cause a crash - doing 54km/h on the dual carraigeway above, or doing 80km/h on the back road?

You've fallen for IrishSpeedTrap's flawed reasoning where he tries to mislead people into an argument based solely on the primary cause of accidents whilst ignoring the effect of speed on the outcome of an accident.

Victor

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I was just reading through the RSA Road Collision Report 2009 and notice that "Exceeded safe speed" is responsible for less than 9% of all crashes. "Went to wrong side of the road" is the highest cause at 32% followed by "Drove through stop/yield sign" at 20%. Why then all the focus on speeding and speed cameras? Wouldn't we save more lives by teaching people to obey stop/yield signs? Any comments?

That table only refers to two vehicle collisions and excludes single vehicle, single vehicle v pedestrian and mutli-vehicle collisions. I would think a lot of the people on the wrong side of the road would be one that were over-taking and hence speed is also a factor.

Notably, cause of a collision is only one factor - you also need to consider severity of accident. Take two scenarios:

(a) Adam drives through a junction at 50km/h and T-bones another vehicle.
(b) Bob drives through a junction at 100km/h and T-bones another vehicle.

Which accident is more likely to be severe? A scientist will tell you that Bob's vehicle has 4 times the energy that Adam's has. A statistician that has studied traffic collisions will tell you that the damage will likely be 8-16 times worse.

Nissan doctor wrote: »

German autbahns in many cases have no speed limits and they are among the lowest accident/fatality roads in europe.

Many Autobahns actually do have speed limits and learning to drive is taken seriously in Germany. Table 53 here: http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/2009_Road_Collision_Fact_Book.pdf indicates that Germany has a similar rate of road traffic deaths to Ireland. Do you have any indication that German motorways are hugely safer than Irish or other motorways?

There has to be limits of course, but current limits, braking distances etc etc are based on car abilities and information from the 60's.

Many Irish driving abilities are also still stuck in the 1960s.

Atomic Pineapple

Scotty # wrote: »

I doubt it. I know most, if not all drivers, know it is illegal to use a mobile while driving and yet I see hundreds doing it everyday. Driving over the speed limit, the use of lanes, (as is being advertised on TV at the moment). People do actually know the rules of the road for the most part. Education does not mean compliance - unfortunately. Knor does penalisation - but it helps.

Most drivers though have their license from before any sort of decent testing was brought in, I know some people who have never taken a driving lesson let alone a test and yet have full licenses.

Also by education and re-education I mean a full reworking of the way we teach people to drive. Much more regulation on what must be thought in lessons, skid pans introduced, proper purpose built areas built to teach people how to drive on back roads, normal national roads and motorways. Proper college night course style classes to teach people about the rules of the road, observing and adjusting to conditions and road types and what happens when it goes wrong.

People know the rules of the road but they aren't educated in them, motorway lane threads on here highlight the amount of people who know they should stay in the left lane but don't because they aren't capable of merging in and out of lanes properly.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Unless the education includes community service attendandance at RTAs or witnessing painful A&E procedures as bits of cars are removed from peoples bodies, I think additional penalty points, increased insurance premia and eventual disqualification will slow people down.

A more realistic approach would be to teach people about the consequences of bad driving.

Of course it will slow people down, through fear rather than a willingness to drive better. Do you really think that is the best we can come up with?

zuutroy

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Post #58 in this thread has already answered this...


"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."

Newton's Third Law in fact states that they both exert exactly the same force on each other. Who comes off worse has to do with momentum and the impulse (duration for which the force acts) of the collision.

MagicSean

You don't appear to have answered my question IrishSpeedTraps. You say you are only against speed traps that are placed in revenue making positions as opposed to those that provide safety. Do your apps only show those in revenue making spots or do they show all of them?

I.S.T.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

You don't appear to have answered my question IrishSpeedTraps. You say you are only against speed traps that are placed in revenue making positions as opposed to those that provide safety. Do your apps only show those in revenue making spots or do they show all of them?

It shows the most frequently reported locations. We don't know which spots are revenue making and which are not. We have asked for these stats but the Guards won't release them.

zuutroy

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

It shows the most frequently reported locations. We don't know which spots are revenue making and which are not. We have asked for these stats but the Guards won't release them.

Surely that should be available under Freedom of Information?

Tragedy

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.

Do you not understand what "contributor to cause of" means? All accidents involve speed, even a two year old gets that.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

References and links to some key reports please (but not to the Daily Mail or Telegraph, thank you).

You argued that international research/evidence shows that a majority of accidents are caused by speeding.

References and links to some key reports please.

UK DfT Road Casualties Great Britain:
2009: Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 38 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2009. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 36 per cent of fatal accidents.
Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 17 per cent of fatalities. At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 13 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 27 per cent of all fatalities.

2008: Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 37 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2008. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 32 per cent of fatal accidents.
Fourteen per cent of accidents had a speed related contributory factor reported, either exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for conditions. This rose to 24 per cent for fatal accidents, accounting for 25 per cent of all road deaths. Twenty three per cent of fatalities in these accidents were motorcyclists.

I'll find more statistics(including the not so good RSA ones) if you can be bothered to provide some yourself.

MagicSean

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

It shows the most frequently reported locations. We don't know which spots are revenue making and which are not. We have asked for these stats but the Guards won't release them.

Why ask the Gardaí? They don't hold the stats in a centralised way. The RSA do. Send a FOI request to the RSA requesting the number of accidents reported in the last five years on each stretch of road covered by speed cameras. But don't be surprised when the stats don't show many revenue makers. All the ones in my area cover spots where there have been serious or fatal accidents.

Atomic Pineapple

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Why ask the Gardaí? They don't hold the stats in a centralised way. The RSA do. Send a FOI request to the RSA requesting the number of accidents reported in the last five years on each stretch of road covered by speed cameras. But don't be surprised when the stats don't show many revenue makers. All the ones in my area cover spots where there have been serious or fatal accidents.

What was the cause of the fatal or serious accidents in that area?

sean1141

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

All the ones in my area cover spots where there have been serious or fatal accidents.

they are on a section of road between mountrath and portlaoise where no one can remember there being a fatal crash in the last 15 years. a few small tips yes but nothing where anyone was seriously injured. the van is often there yet just out out side portlaoise on a stretch of road where 6 people were killed there is no camera van

Nissan doctor

This whole 'speed involved in 100% of accidents' rubbish in this thread is starting to get silly.
Yes the cars have to be moving in order to have an accident in the first place, there is no intelligence required to understand that, but speed limits and road rules, like most such regulations, are designed to account for the most inept apes in society so if an accident has occurred, and both cars were doing less then the speed limit and a safe speed for the conditions, then speed was NOT a factor!

Saying speed was involved simply because both cars were moving is beyond ridiculous.

As I said earlier, the ground would not be classed as a contributing factor to you being pushed off a building and killed, or gravity is never reported as being partially responsible for a plane crash so how can saying that because the car was moving, that movement contributed to the accident be considered a valid, intelligent argument?:rolleyes:

MagicSean

draffodx wrote: »

What was the cause of the fatal or serious accidents in that area?

Speed was a factor in four of the last five I can think of. But it was not listed as the primary cause in three. For example, a person travelling too fast to stop at a junction but the cause was listed as failing to stop at a stop sign. A drink driver speeding through a junction but the primary cause is drink driving. A person overtaking at high speed but the primary cause is dangerous overtaking. The fourth one was just speed, and on a national route. The fifth was mechanical fault. They are just the ones I can remember off hand. It's very rare that speed would be listed as the primary cause of an accident.

sean1141 wrote: »

they are on a section of road between mountrath and portlaoise where no one can remember there being a fatal crash in the last 15 years. a few small tips yes but nothing where anyone was seriously injured. the van is often there yet just out out side portlaoise on a stretch of road where 6 people were killed there is no camera van

I'm afraid I don't know the area that well so I don't know it's history. I do know that before the motorway was extended the stretch of road between Port Laoise and Mountrath was very incredibly and not very well maintained and it was not unusual to see some random maniac overtaking people for no reason.

sean1141

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't know the area that well so I don't know it's history. I do know that before the motorway was extended the stretch of road between Port Laoise and Mountrath was very incredibly and not very well maintained and it was not unusual to see some random maniac overtaking people for no reason.

unfortunatly i do.. i also knew the 6 that were killed. im not saying the van shouldnt be on the section it is on but why its not also on the section where these people were killed.
they are only starting to repair the road next week. there were sections of it very bad and its not unusual to see a car on the wrong side of the road to avoid some of the dips and holes. that reminds me when the roadworks were being done on the old cork/dublin road outside portlaoise the camera van was there 24 hours a day doing people who went over the roadworks speed limit.

Scotty #

Nissan doctor wrote: »

As I said earlier, the ground would not be classed as a contributing factor to you being pushed off a building and killed, or gravity is never reported as being partially responsible for a plane crash so how can saying that because the car was moving, that movement contributed to the accident be considered a valid, intelligent argument?:rolleyes:

If you could control gravity or could control where the ground was then maybe we would be discussing that. As we can't - we aren't. Your speed while driving is under your control (stating the obvious here again I know but it seems to be necessary). That, and the fact that your speed is the single most important influence on the outcome of the collision, is maybe, just maybe, why the RSA 'focus' a lot on speed in their campaigns which, after all, was the OP's question was it not?

pippip

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

Lists accidents of varying degrees from 2005 - 2009

MagicSean

pippip wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

Lists accidents of varying degrees from 2005 - 2009

Very useful.

polyfusion

pippip wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

Lists accidents of varying degrees from 2005 - 2009

Thanks for the link, but I'm curious to how in 2007 a pedestrian fatality occurred about 10kms off the Cork coast? Crushed by a shifting car on a ferry perhaps?

Zubeneschamali

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It's very rare that speed would be listed as the primary cause of an accident.

That's because it's very rare that speed is the primary cause of an accident.

Dangerous overtaking, drink-driving and passing a stop sign are not speed. it is perfectly possible to speed every time you drive without doing any of those things.

dr.fuzzenstein

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's because it's very rare that speed is the primary cause of an accident.

Dangerous overtaking, drink-driving and passing a stop sign are not speed. it is perfectly possible to speed every time you drive without doing any of those things.

You get burned at the stake these days for saying that!;)
And, furthermore, it is perfectly possible to maim and kill people within the speed limit.
But it is easier to pacify the "won't somebody please think of the children" brigade with a few empty catchphrases, platitudes, banging the table a bit and having more cash cameras out there.
Then the moronic masses will think "ooh, he's great, he Gets Things Done and Puts His Foot Down!"
No one is interested in an intelligent solution, so prepare for more "Speed Kills!", more cameras and possibly more Gardai (though I don't see them doing that much), so the thinking classes will have to sort it out amongst themselves again through intelligence and common sense.
Yes, that still exists, goes mostly unnoticed and rarely gets mentioned.
So best to just ignore the hysteria and (as Homer Simpson once said) Stop Being So Unsafe!

MagicSean

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's because it's very rare that speed is the primary cause of an accident.

Dangerous overtaking, drink-driving and passing a stop sign are not speed. it is perfectly possible to speed every time you drive without doing any of those things.

Did you even read it? He went through the stop sign because he was going too fast to stop. In the overtaking one he had to overtake because he was going too fast to slow down before hitting the car in front. Excessive speed will increase the risk of any maneouver performed. It also reduces the ability to respond to unexpected obstacles. It also increases the damage caused in any collision.

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

You argued that international research/evidence shows that a majority of accidents are caused by speeding.

I'll find more statistics(including the not so good RSA ones) if you can be bothered to provide some yourself.

Did I?

Try this one: http://www.trg.dk/elvik/740-2004.pdf

I.S.T.

zuutroy wrote: »

Surely that should be available under Freedom of Information?

Gardaí are exempt from FOI requests.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Why ask the Gardaí? They don't hold the stats in a centralised way. The RSA do. Send a FOI request to the RSA requesting the number of accidents reported in the last five years on each stretch of road covered by speed cameras. But don't be surprised when the stats don't show many revenue makers. All the ones in my area cover spots where there have been serious or fatal accidents.

The Gardaí hold the stats on the speed cameras, where they are located, how many offenders each one detects, etc. Those are the stats we want. We can't get them.

Iwannahurl

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

it's very rare that speed is the primary cause of an accident.

"Very rare"? How is that defined?

Published evidence please. Publication references, links etc.

We've already seen the table with the 32 fatalities etc, so something more substantial and generalisable is required.

challengemaster

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You've fallen for IrishSpeedTrap's flawed reasoning where he tries to mislead people into an argument based solely on the primary cause of accidents whilst ignoring the effect of speed on the outcome of an accident.

Or, just maybe I'm able to think for myself and came to my own conclusions?

And funnily enough, if you were to eliminate the primary cause of an accident, you wouldn't have an accident, would you? Therefore the effect speed has on the outcome is irrelavent.

I'm aware that while accidents occur this isn't the case and speed is a FACTOR in the outcome, but people really need to stop following the RSA train of "speed kills".

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Why ask the Gardaí? They don't hold the stats in a centralised way. The RSA do. Send a FOI request to the RSA requesting the number of accidents reported in the last five years on each stretch of road covered by speed cameras. But don't be surprised when the stats don't show many revenue makers. All the ones in my area cover spots where there have been serious or fatal accidents.

That's like ringing Eircom and asking are UPC better. Of course it's in their interest not to tell you, so you're going to get a biased (aka. false) answer

MagicSean

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Gardaí are exempt from FOI requests.



The Gardaí hold the stats on the speed cameras, where they are located, how many offenders each one detects, etc. Those are the stats we want. We can't get them.

The locations are published. Why would it matter how many tickets are issued in each area? Sure all that would matter is wether the camera is located in an area with a history of serious or fatal crashes?

Iwannahurl

polyfusion wrote: »

Thanks for the link, but I'm curious to how in 2007 a pedestrian fatality occurred about 10kms off the Cork coast? Crushed by a shifting car on a ferry perhaps?

Well spotted.

In 2007 there were 81 pedestrian deaths.

In the spirit of this thread, we can therefore confidently conclude that 1.2% of all pedestrian fatalities occur at sea.

Zubeneschamali

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Sure all that would matter is wether the camera is located in an area with a history of serious or fatal crashes?

It also matters how long ago the accidents occurred. There are places on the Garda map where deaths occurred, the council or NRA improved the road (possibly because of the deaths), and that the road is now much safer.

On a safer road, drivers tend to travel faster, making that stretch ideal for a safety van.

I.S.T.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The locations are published. Why would it matter how many tickets are issued in each area? Sure all that would matter is wether the camera is located in an area with a history of serious or fatal crashes?

We want to know how much revenue is generated at each camera location. We also want to know the accident rate at the camera location prior to introduction of the camera, and in the time after it was introduced.

MagicSean

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

We want to know how much revenue is generated at each camera location. We also want to know the accident rate at the camera location prior to introduction of the camera, and in the time after it was introduced.

Again why does the amount of revenue matter if all you are concerned about is having them in necessary locations?

MagicSean

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It also matters how long ago the accidents occurred. There are places on the Garda map where deaths occurred, the council or NRA improved the road (possibly because of the deaths), and that the road is now much safer.

On a safer road, drivers tend to travel faster, making that stretch ideal for a safety van.

Could you point to a location where a serious or fatal accident occurred as a result of road conditions which have been dramatically upgraded? The only time I've ever seen road conditions be possibly responsable for a collisions was during snow.

challengemaster

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Could you point to a location where a serious or fatal accident occurred as a result of road conditions which have been dramatically upgraded? The only time I've ever seen road conditions be possibly responsable for a collisions was during snow.

New motorways bypassing older, lesser quality roads for one. The old roads still exist and have the accident toll, but they aren't used half as much. This would also provide false stats which could be used to promote the use of these cameras.

MagicSean

challengemaster wrote: »

New motorways bypassing older, lesser quality roads for one. The old roads still exist and have the accident toll, but they aren't used half as much. This would also provide false stats which could be used to promote the use of these cameras.

And the speed traps are located on the old, still dangerous, road and not the new safer motorway.

Captain Chaos

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Speeding kills. End of.

It's the sudden stop I would have thought myself.

overshoot

here look can we just divide speed into suitable and unsuitable for the purposes of the thread. it is impossible to have some sort of life let alone cars without speed. my grandfather died after he fell while walking... speed kills surely? if he was in his armchair it wouldnt have happened:rolleyes:
im sure anyone here has enough cop on to realise speed limits do not always equal a safe speed and there are plenty on N roads bettered by R roads around yet the N has a higher limit

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Did I?

Try this one: http://www.trg.dk/elvik/740-2004.pdf

You asked for published reports/evidence, I gave you some, and you refuse to comment or debate on it.

Definitely a troll.

I won't bother pointing out the parts of the study that have been proven wrong in the UK stats, or that the study agrees that on average, higher speed limits have lower accident rates because the roads tend to be better etc, because you have zero interest in learning anything new.

Zubeneschamali

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

And the speed traps are located on the old, still dangerous, road and not the new safer motorway.

I got done on the Motorway. (Not by a van, though, by a guy with a hairdryer).

GreeBo

Speed doesnt cause accidents, it just makes them worse.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesnt cause accidents, but again makes the outcome worse.

Are those of you on here who are against preventing speeding also against wearing seatbelts?

Tragedy

GreeBo wrote: »

Speed doesnt cause accidents, it just makes them worse.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesnt cause accidents, but again makes the outcome worse.

Are those of you on here who are against preventing speeding also against wearing seatbelts?

When you can understand the difference between speed and speeding, try that argument again.

For your argument to be logically correct, it should be as follows:
Any speed above 0 = worse accidents
No seatbelt = worse accidents
People against stopping people driving at any speed are equivalent to people against wearing seatbelts.

Do you see how stupid that is?
Yes.

Atomic Pineapple

GreeBo wrote: »

Speed doesnt cause accidents, it just makes them worse.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesnt cause accidents, but again makes the outcome worse.

Are those of you on here who are against preventing speeding also against wearing seatbelts?

I think it's the manner in which the government are trying to prevent speeding that is the issue, not that people are against preventing it.

I.S.T.

GreeBo wrote: »

Are those of you on here who are against preventing speeding also against wearing seatbelts?

We're not against preventing speeding. We're against preventing speeding on safe roads taking a priority over preventing speeding on dangerous roads.

MagicSean

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

We're not against preventing speeding. We're against preventing speeding on safe roads taking a priority over preventing speeding on dangerous roads.

Which you have yet to prove happens in any way shape or form.

challengemaster

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

And the speed traps are located on the old, still dangerous, road and not the new safer motorway.

The vans aren't, but where do you think they relocated all those traffic corps speed traps to now there's a van sitting in their usual money earning spot?

My point was - It's all well and good claiming that road deaths on X road have dropped since the cameras were implemted, but it's redundant statement if most of the traffic isn't using the road anymore. Yes, they dropped, but you can't claim it had anything to do with the cameras.

Using a very basic and obviously not-real example - If there were 20 deaths on the road before, yet there's only 15 cars driving on the road now, obviously the deaths will fall. It doesn't matter if you put landmines on the road, there'll still be less than 20 deaths.

Iwannahurl

GreeBo wrote: »

Speed doesnt cause accidents, it just makes them worse.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesnt cause accidents, but again makes the outcome worse.

Are those of you on here who are against preventing speeding also against wearing seatbelts?

Unlike seatbelts, higher speed increases both the risk and severity of collisions.

That's why measures to reduce average speed, including speed surveillance, are important and effective road safety interventions.

challengemaster

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Unlike seatbelts, higher speed increases both the risk and severity of collisions.

That's why measures to reduce average speed, including speed surveillance, are important and effective road safety interventions.

Pre-emtive measures are far more effective than someone getting a fine from a van hidden in a ditch somewhere that they didn't see. If you really wanted to slow people down over a certain area, there's better ways to do it - ones which don't involve revenue generation, which is why they'll never be used.

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

You asked for published reports/evidence, I gave you some, and you refuse to comment or debate on it.

Definitely a troll.

I won't bother pointing out the parts of the study that have been proven wrong in the UK stats, or that the study agrees that on average, higher speed limits have lower accident rates because the roads tend to be better etc, because you have zero interest in learning anything new.

"Troll" -- the evidence-dodger's favourite get-out clause.

I'm always interested in hearing of new research findings, especially evidence that genuinely challenges the status quo.

Unfortunately, the chances of finding such material, or any rational discussion of it, in this thread (or indeed in any Boards thread on the topic) are slim to none.

Iwannahurl

challengemaster wrote: »

Pre-emtive measures are far more effective than someone getting a fine from a van hidden in a ditch somewhere that they didn't see. If you really wanted to slow people down over a certain area, there's better ways to do it - ones which don't involve revenue generation, which is why they'll never be used.

What are those measures, and what comparative studies have been conducted?

Iwannahurl

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

We're not against preventing speeding.

Yes you are.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056367300