Driving: the Speed Debate.

challengemaster

ohthebaby wrote: »

I just wish people would understand that speed kills.

Doesn't really. Stupidity and bad drivers do.

The whole speed kills thing is such tripe. If thats true, then how come in Germany, parts of the autobahn allow you to drive at 300km/h+ legally, and yet it's one of the safest roads in the world....

I seriously wish people would stop regurgitating the crap that the RSA/parents/etc feed them without thinking it through first.

Grindylow

challengemaster wrote: »

Doesn't really. Stupidity and bad drivers do.

The whole speed kills thing is such tripe. If thats true, then how come in Germany, parts of the autobahn allow you to drive at 300km/h+ legally, and yet it's one of the safest roads in the world....

I seriously wish people would stop regurgitating the crap that the RSA/parents/etc feed them without thinking it through first.

I'm sure she didn't technically mean speed ACTUALLY kills. Probably that speeding can kill!

almostnever

challengemaster wrote: »

Doesn't really. Stupidity and bad drivers do.

The whole speed kills thing is such tripe. If thats true, then how come in Germany, parts of the autobahn allow you to drive at 300km/h+ legally, and yet it's one of the safest roads in the world....

I seriously wish people would stop regurgitating the crap that the RSA/parents/etc feed them without thinking it through first.

While stupidity and bad driving/decisions obviously do lead to accidents, it's a sad fact that road traffic accidents can happen to the best of drivers and can be as a result of an unfortunate twist of fate. And if one of the vehicles involved is speeding, there is a massive increase in the chances that someone will die or sustain horrific and life altering injury.

So I really don't think that warning about speeding and its dangers is anything like "regurgitating crap" at all, I think it's something that a lot of people need to hear and understand. Anyway, perhaps speeding can be considered a form of "bad driving", in which case these terrible crashes should serve as a cautionary tale. What better way to curb bad driving and prevent accidents than effective education and warning?

MavisDavis

Lads, let's just go with "speeding does not help the situation" and not argue about it.

Those poor families.

ohthebaby

challengemaster wrote: »

Doesn't really. Stupidity and bad drivers do.

The whole speed kills thing is such tripe. If thats true, then how come in Germany, parts of the autobahn allow you to drive at 300km/h+ legally, and yet it's one of the safest roads in the world....

I seriously wish people would stop regurgitating the crap that the RSA/parents/etc feed them without thinking it through first.

Going at 300km/hr on a German Autobahn, (which I assume in most parts would be a massive straight road somewhat equivalent to our motorways, void of extremely sharp bends, hidden pot holes, pedestrians, etc,) is a lot different to flying around the bendy backroads of Ireland at 80-100km/hr, something that happens all the time in my part of the country. If you meet a car at a bad bend, like the one on the road that I live on, driving at this speed of course it's the stupid driving of the other driver that's going to cause an accident but just like the post Insect Overlord referred us to, it's the impact from the speed that's going to cause a death.

I live on one of bendiest, smallest roads I have ever seen in my life. I imagine the carnage left from somebody leaving the road and hitting a wall or something at a ridiculous speed would be a damn sight worse than somebody travelling at a speed suitable for the tiny road. It was this kind of thing I was referring to when I said speed kills. It makes me both sad and angry that some young people in my parts, my friends and neighbours, do not have any sense with regards to speed or sensible driving on these roads. I just hope they cop on soon before anything bad happens to them. And may those poor people this morning rest in peace.

MavisDavis is right, let's just leave it. May they all RIP.

Midnight_EG

You'd be surprised at the quality of the Autobahn >.>

challengemaster

challengemaster wrote: »

Doesn't really. Stupidity and bad drivers do.

The whole speed kills thing is such tripe. If thats true, then how come in Germany, parts of the autobahn allow you to drive at 300km/h+ legally, and yet it's one of the safest roads in the world....

I seriously wish people would stop regurgitating the crap that the RSA/parents/etc feed them without thinking it through first.

I remember them telling us in TY that a large proportion of accidents are one car accidents. People lose control and kill themselves and the other passengers, basically.

This is the reason why there's such a difference between the Autobahn and the bendy sort-of roads ohthebaby mentions.

Midnight_EG

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember them telling us in TY that a large proportion of accidents are one car accidents. People lose control and kill themselves and the other passengers, basically.

This is the reason why there's such a difference between the Autobahn and the bendy sort-of roads ohthebaby mentions.

As you say it, a rather large percentage of single car accidents are suicides believe it or not.

Midnight_EG

Midnight_EG wrote: »

As you say it, a rather large percentage of single car accidents are suicides believe it or not.

Not such a large percentage. Maybe larger than you'd think, but a comfortable majority aren't suicides.

Well, of crashes. 'Accidents' cannot be suicides, you see.

Midnight_EG

Deleted User wrote: »

Not such a large percentage. Maybe larger than you'd think, but a comfortable majority aren't suicides.

Well, of crashes. 'Accidents' cannot be suicides, you see.

When the circumstances are near-perfect, where's the reason for crashing...as is like most of them tbh

Midnight_EG

Midnight_EG wrote: »

When the circumstances are near-perfect, where's the reason for crashing...as is like most of them tbh

Speed, tbh. That's kind of the point of what everybody's been saying. Conditions may have been near-perfect, but these people aren't rally drivers.

challengemaster

Deleted User wrote: »

Not such a large percentage. Maybe larger than you'd think, but a comfortable majority aren't suicides.

Well, of crashes. 'Accidents' cannot be suicides, you see.

Maybe someone should inform the RSA of that then, as they like to lump everything together to suit their stats and campaigns.

Deleted User wrote: »

Speed, tbh. That's kind of the point of what everybody's been saying. Conditions may have been near-perfect, but these people aren't rally drivers.

You're just assuming the cause was speed, because of...nothing, really. Why not assume the other way around? Someone wants to commit suicide, therefore they drive as fast as they can into a wall. Speed didn't cause them to lose control, to drive into the wall, anything. It just seems easier to believe the other option, that it was an 'accident' and they lost control or some such, especially due to preconceptions.

challengemaster

challengemaster wrote: »

Maybe someone should inform the RSA of that then, as they like to lump everything together to suit their stats and campaigns.

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:

Midnight_EG

Deleted User wrote: »

Speed, tbh. That's kind of the point of what everybody's been saying. Conditions may have been near-perfect, but these people aren't rally drivers.

Speed itself doesn't kill, it's the impact and ultimately the driver who kills themselves. Speed is simply a factor in it. I could go out and crash at 20mph and I may die, whereas I may crash at 80mph and live. It's all too big a variable to simply say that speed is the common fault.

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:

The RSA do whatever they like to suit themselves, they count every single crash on the road as an 18 year old male in a boy racer car breaking the speed limit on a backroad with a female passenger who apparently dies.

Midnight_EG

Midnight_EG wrote: »

Speed itself doesn't kill, it's the impact and ultimately the driver who kills themselves. Speed is simply a factor in it. I could go out and crash at 20mph and I may die, whereas I may crash at 80mph and live. It's all too big a variable to simply say that speed is the common fault.

The main idea is that they go out of control because of speed, not because the extra momentum in the crash make it more likely they'll die - it doesn't, with the design of modern cars, in a lot of cases.

The RSA do whatever they like to suit themselves, they count every single crash on the road as an 18 year old male in a boy racer car breaking the speed limit on a backroad with a female passenger who apparently dies.

Funny, looking at rsa.ie I can't find any statistics on 18-year old boy racers breaking the speed limit on a backroad with a female passenger who apparently dies.

You may be confusing the RSA's statistics with the fact that invariably newspapers only make stories out of 18-year old boy racers, and not all the other crashes.


Now I'll just make the final point - speed is not the only killer on roads, maybe it's not even the biggest, but speed can make people lose control of their cars, it does lead to more road deaths in this way and (this is the most important point) it's the factor in the number of crashes per year that we can actually do the most about.

The defence rests >.>

challengemaster

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny, looking at rsa.ie I can't find any statistics on 18-year old boy racers breaking the speed limit on a backroad with a female passenger who apparently dies.

You may be confusing the RSA's statistics with the fact that invariably newspapers only make stories out of 18-year old boy racers, and not all the other crashes.

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

Midnight_EG

Deleted User wrote: »

The main idea is that they go out of control because of speed, not because the extra momentum in the crash make it more likely they'll die - it doesn't, with the design of modern cars, in a lot of cases.

The sudden stop is what kills you, not the speed, speed is irrelevant in any single car crash IMO. Control is something any driver should have of their car, and if they don't take a day out where they basically lump the car sideways in a carpark to know their limits, well then they deserve to lose control sometime. You have to know how to react, whether it be at 20mph or 80mph, it's all about the reaction time. Some people panic, and speed can't be blamed on that. Some people just blank out, again speed can't be blamed on that. It's not knowing what to do that's the problem, not speed. All my opinion of course.

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny, looking at rsa.ie I can't find any statistics on 18-year old boy racers breaking the speed limit on a backroad with a female passenger who apparently dies.

You may be confusing the RSA's statistics with the fact that invariably newspapers only make stories out of 18-year old boy racers, and not all the other crashes.

You're not aware of the 'He Drives, She Dies' campaign...are you?

Watch all of the RSA's ad's, they're all about exactly what I've described.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now I'll just make the final point - speed is not the only killer on roads, maybe it's not even the biggest, but speed can make people lose control of their cars, it does lead to more road deaths in this way and (this is the most important point) it's the factor in the number of crashes per year that we can actually do the most about.

My first note will agree with this, and I agree in saying speed can make a driver lose control, but not all of the time.

Deleted User wrote: »

The defence rests >.>

Opposite of defendant alludes me atm, rests :P

ohthebaby

Ok this argument probably has gone a bit far for this thread but I'd just like to say there's no need to be driving at silly speeds on small Irish roads. That is all.

challengemaster

challengemaster wrote: »

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

Fair enough.

Although, the stats are true - they just underhandedly preceded them with an article based on no evidence to trick people.
People should think about statistics for themselves anyway. If they try to imply causality with no evidence, or get taken in by subjective arguments, that's their business.

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.

Midnight_EG

Midnight_EG wrote: »

The sudden stop is what kills you, not the speed, speed is irrelevant in any single car crash IMO. Control is something any driver should have of their car, and if they don't take a day out where they basically lump the car sideways in a carpark to know their limits, well then they deserve to lose control sometime.

This is the last point I'll come back to, lest we completely derail these argghs.
EDIT: Actually, since you said speed is irrelevant in your opinion, I'll just be slightly glib and say that I trust the opinions of psychologists and neuroscientists who researched human reaction times more.

People are tested and certified to drive at normal speed limits, and taught how to do so. Nobody who hasn't been trained to drive at higher speeds should be allowed to do so, because driving is about practice and experience.
Even professional drivers crash at high speeds tbh.

Midnight_EG

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the last point I'll come back to, lest we completely derail these argghs.
EDIT: Actually, since you said speed is irrelevant in your opinion, I'll just be slightly glib and say that I trust the opinions of psychologists and neuroscientists who researched human reaction times more.

People are tested and certified to drive at normal speed limits, and taught how to do so. Nobody who hasn't been trained to drive at higher speeds should be allowed to do so, because driving is about practice and experience.
Even professional drivers crash at high speeds tbh.

Single car crashes meaning just one car involved, if that validates your statement? :]


Don't think of me as an aggresive asshole btw, it's just a topic I feel strongly about... :P

Midnight_EG

Midnight_EG wrote: »

Single car crashes meaning just one car involved, if that validates your statement? :]


Don't think of me as an aggresive asshole btw, it's just a topic I feel strongly about... :P

Of course single car crashes meaning just one car involved. :pac: Can't think of any other kind of single-car crashes.

Midnight_EG

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course single car crashes meaning just one car involved. :pac: Can't think of any other kind of single-car crashes.

I didn't hyphenate :mad: :P

Insect Overlord

Just thought I'd start this thread to keep the topic separate from the Aaaaarrrghhh thread. It's something a lot of people feel passionately about, so I reckon it deserves its own thread.

highlydebased

I have many many gripes with the RSA and their "campaigns".

Speed does not kill. "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. The road is of motorway standard.

I think that if you are going to drive in an unsuitable fashion (no respect for yourself, your car, other road users or the law) well then you probably deserve an accident. There is just as much chance of you having an accident in this case doing 30mph on a backroad as there is 80mph on a backroad.

There needs to be a clear line drawn between "Speed", "agressive driving" and merely pushing on. I've said it on the motoring forum and I'll say it here. Speed limits need to be assessed on a case by case basis. Some roads are designated a far too low limit and some an unsuitably high limit. Where users are forced to stick to a unrealistically low limit like glue, it causes frustration amongst others and makes drivers to stupid things and hence how accidents happen.

I think the whole stigma about "speed" needs to be changed to be honest.

As for this "he drives she dies" thing, I find it highly highly offensive. Do they not realise that he could probably well die too? If I have people in the car with me, girls or not, I drive with the same level of level-headedness as much as possible as if i were alone.

Neon-Circles

Neon-Circles wrote: »

I think the whole stigma about "speed" needs to be changed to be honest.

I think it's not unreasonable to ask people to go slower than they would like in the interest of safety in the case where something unexpected does happen where they would need more reaction time.

The rest of the arguments seem to be about the semantics of "speed kills". If I were to say "speed can lead to loss of control, particularly on bendy roads, and lowers the time in which a driver may react in case of a person or other car suddenly getting in the way, and thus leads to deaths in certain cases" would there be any arguments?

highlydebased

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's not unreasonable to ask people to go slower than they would like in the interest of safety in the case where something unexpected does happen where they would need more reaction time.

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

Midnight_EG

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...?

QueenOfLeon

I think the "He drives she dies" campaign is the most sexist, ridiculous statement you could make! In my experience when younger guys are driving, whether or not they like to push it a bit, they have taken care when they have passengers in the car. That stupid campaign isn't going to do anything apart from worry parents that every young male driver is out there to take risks and injure their passengers.

I think someone speeding along a narrow, bendy country road is obviously extremely dangerous, when a lot of roads are barely wide enough for 1 car. Speed alone has the potential to do great damage on these roads with a head on collision around a bend, for example, but the driver should still be skilled enough to react as quickly as possible to avoid as much damage as possible. On a good standard national road or the motorway, it is of course possible to drive faster than the speed limit and safely at the same time. There are a lot of other things that cause accidents, car faults (as in potd), distractions like phones or passengers or just generally bad driving.

Midnight_EG

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

I think someone speeding along a narrow, bendy country road is obviously extremely dangerous, when a lot of roads are barely wide enough for 1 car. Speed alone has the potential to do great damage on these roads with a head on collision around a bend, for example, but the driver should still be skilled enough to react as quickly as possible to avoid as much damage as possible. On a good standard national road or the motorway, it is of course possible to drive faster than the speed limit and safely at the same time. There are a lot of other things that cause accidents, car faults (as in potd), distractions like phones or passengers or just generally bad driving.

Should a certain 9 cars be left out of this part? :pac:

sock puppet

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.

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

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.