(Would you like the)Motorway speed limit to be raised to 130km/h

billie1b

shedweller wrote: »

Correct. Bad driving is more likely to be the cause. The higher speed just made the injuries more severe.

My brother in law was in a single car crash, two kids ran out in front of him on a morning with black ice from behind a bus stop, he jammed on his brakes and skidded while swerving to avoid them, he missed them (thank god), veered onto the wrong side of the road, mounted the kerb, hit a wall, the van turned on its side, his seatbelt popped and his head smashed the window on the drivers side (fractured the right side of his skull), the force threw him to the passenger side of the van where the window smashed and he landed half out the window with the van resting on his head. The left side of his skull also fractured from the impacts, he had broken bones and cuts n bruises everywhere, was in a coma for a week and 6 weeks in intensive care, still mot allowed to work, 7 years later and on constant medication, all this happened while he was going an estimated speed of between 30 and 40 km per hour. Speed is not always the factor to severe injuries or more severe injuries. I know a man who's car was flipped over (360 degrees) on the Ballymun road by a car that broke a red light and ploughed into him and his 3 friends, both cars were going over 50km per hour when it happened and they all walked away with a couple of scratches.

Sam Russell

On the Autobahn, I imagine being in the outside lane looks to me to be driving in the suicide lane, with the rear-view mirror filling rapidly with fast approaching BMW/Mercedes/Audi going at stupid Kmph. Therefore, being sensible I would limit my exposure to danger to the shortest possible time.

Here in Ireland, most motorists would be limited by the speed limit to going just a bit quicker than the vehicle they are passing, and there is another one just in front of that, so they feel they might as well stay in the outside lane, going at 119 kmph. Others think, on three lane motorways, that the leftmost lane is for slow lorries, and deffinitely not for them. A total waste of a lane. I]This is particularly notieable on the Naas to Newlands Cross on the N7[/I

That would suggest that a posted derestricted limit makes drivers very aware of faster vehicle piling down the motorway and their need to get out of the way, and quickly.

Whether having a higher, or no, limit would get drivers to keep left on motorways is open to debate, but I would think there would be many accidents and deaths before sufficient 'average' motorists get the idea.

SIZE=2][I][SIZE=1]80% of all drivers rate themselves as well above average[/SIZE].[/I][/SIZE

GTE

billie1b wrote: »

The video and what the video stands for is obvious, breaking distance, but what i'm saying is the video is not very educational, some people, not all, will think because of the video that its ok to just brake and hit whatever is in the way, when in fact you should be trying to avoid it at all possible chances

Since that is what you took from that, fair enough, it is not in my interest to care enough about that but what I will say is that I think your perception of what the driving public as a while can take from the video is wrong. A video dealing with braking distances is not a video in how to take avoiding action as there are too many variations on what could require such a move.

shedweller

billie1b wrote: »

 Speed is not always the factor to severe injuries or more severe injuries..

True, but i'd rather crash at 120 than 140 or more.

pafro

shedweller wrote: »

True, but i'd rather crash at 120 than 140 or more.

I'd rather crash at 50 than 120.. Would that mean that the speed limit should be lowered?

GTE

pafro wrote: »

I'd rather crash at 50 than 120.. Would that mean that the speed limit should be lowered?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that and that your post is just a needless dramatisation of what is being discussed so the point you are trying to make is not valid.

The question is, are we looking at a case of diminishing returns by raising the speed limit when that will make the limit closer to the ultimate design limit of the motorways which is even worse as there will be a proportion of drivers who will exceed that again.

I would be for raising the limits on the basis there is an extremely strict and fine toothed comb change in driver competence on motorways and near 0% tolerance of speeding at the new higher rate as the design limit of our roads are edged ever closer.

I would rarely use that extra allowable speed and I would not accept anyone telling me that I should raise my cruising speed from ~123KPH so a greater appreciation of that by drivers everywhere would be required. I say that for all the giving out we do about slow motorway drivers but I appreciate that people lower than 80kph is a very different thing to someone going 130 or 140 and meeting someone happily cruising at 110-120.

The OP is talking about 130 which I think is perfectly fine but the thought of 140+ is where I take what I have just said in this post more seriously.

pafro

bbk wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting that and that your post is just a needless dramatisation of what is being discussed so the point you are trying to make is not valid.

The question is, are we looking at a case of diminishing returns by raising the speed limit when that will make the limit closer to the ultimate design limit of the motorways which is even worse as there will be a proportion of drivers who will exceed that again.

I would be for raising the limits on the basis there is an extremely strict and fine toothed comb change in driver competence on motorways and near 0% tolerance of speeding at the new higher rate as the design limit of our roads are edged ever closer.

I would rarely use that extra allowable speed and I would not accept anyone telling me that I should raise my cruising speed from ~123KPH so a greater appreciation of that by drivers everywhere would be required. I say that for all the giving out we do about slow motorway drivers but I appreciate that people lower than 80kph is a very different thing to someone going 130 or 140 and meeting someone happily cruising at 110-120.

The OP is talking about 130 which I think is perfectly fine but the thought of 140+ is where I take what I have just said in this post more seriously.

Understand.

This is also interesting research that shows that increase does not affect the amount of accidents.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
I was surprised during a business trip in the US in August that some states lift the speed limit on the freeways.
They brought up the fact that todays cars are safer than the vehicles back then when the speed limits were introduced.


I would also agree that a speed limit of 130/140 would be sufficient even thought I usually drive that speed anyway. But I doubt I would automatically go up to 150 or so if the gov. decides to increase the speed limit to 130.

shedweller

pafro wrote: »

I'd rather crash at 50 than 120.. Would that mean that the speed limit should be lowered?

Of course not. But on an average commute the extra speed is only going to drain your wallet faster. The time saved will be small. Its only worthwhile when heading off the length of the country and even then if you were doing it a lot you'd probably get tired of the large fuel bills. It aint getting cheaper lads!

Oh wait, is this one of those thinly veiled raising revenue threads?

pafro

shedweller wrote: »

Of course not. But on an average commute the extra speed is only going to drain your wallet faster. The time saved will be small. Its only worthwhile when heading off the length of the country and even then if you were doing it a lot you'd probably get tired of the large fuel bills. It aint getting cheaper lads!

Oh wait, is this one of those thinly veiled raising revenue threads?

That might be a reason for you, but there are people that do not care much about fuel costs. (like me)
If you don't want to spend money on fuel; drive slower but not too slow to block others
A speed limit should not be a "target" to reach but at least it gives the choice.

Time wise for me from Cork to Dublin (around 300km) would be:
100km/h = 3h
120km/h = 2.5h
130km/h - 2.3h

Saves me 10 minutes in which I could have parked my car already and sit in a meeting room.

unkel

pafro wrote: »

I was surprised during a business trip in the US in August that some states lift the speed limit on the freeways.

And the opposite too - going below the minimum speed over there will see you removed from an interstate quicker than going over the maximum speed. And rightly so!

unkel

pafro wrote: »

Time wise for me from Cork to Dublin (around 300km) would be:
100km/h = 3h
120km/h = 2.5h
130km/h - 2.3h

+1

On a family holiday to Kerry, I gained nearly an hour between Dublin and Limerick compared to the other families we were holidaying with. Kept the lead and we were all settled in, had a swim in the sea and a drink by the time the others arrived

billie1b

pafro wrote: »

That might be a reason for you, but there are people that do not care much about fuel costs. (like me)
If you don't want to spend money on fuel; drive slower but not too slow to block others
A speed limit should not be a "target" to reach but at least it gives the choice.

Time wise for me from Cork to Dublin (around 300km) would be:
100km/h = 3h
120km/h = 2.5h
130km/h - 2.3h

Saves me 10 minutes in which I could have parked my car already and sit in a meeting room.

My record, Dublin to Ringaskiddy, 270km, 2h 15mins, used 25 litres of diesel, way home Ringaskiddy to Dublin, 270km, 2h 50mins, used 32 litres of diesel

shedweller

pafro wrote: »

That might be a reason for you, but there are people that do not care much about fuel costs. (like me)
If you don't want to spend money on fuel; drive slower but not too slow to block others
A speed limit should not be a "target" to reach but at least it gives the choice.

Time wise for me from Cork to Dublin (around 300km) would be:
100km/h = 3h
120km/h = 2.5h
130km/h - 2.3h

Saves me 10 minutes in which I could have parked my car already and sit in a meeting room.

All true. As i said earlier, AGS need to enforce lane discipline etc. and then you can do your speed, i can do mine and never the twain shall meet!

unkel

shedweller wrote: »

All true. As i said earlier, AGS need to enforce lane discipline etc. and then you can do your speed, i can do mine and never the twain shall meet!

Amen to that

Iwannahurl

billie1b wrote: »

Not missing the educational point at all, I know what the video is saying and doing, its just not a realistic conclusion, it was totally avoidable for the car in the outside lane,

Actually no, you are very much missing the point. Still.

billie1b

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Actually no, you are very much missing the point. Still.

Ok I have no clue what the video is about! Tool

Iwannahurl

seamus wrote: »

No, that's logically inconsistent, because you would need to show that all deaths are caused by high speeds.

Because someone has died on the autobahn, does not indicate that high speed was the causative factor.

No, because no such claim is being made.

The level of speed at impact was undoubtedly a factor in the severity of the crash, because it always is, without exception. If they were travelling at a lower speed when the crash occurred (or even a low speed, though that's unlikely on an autobahn one supposes) there was a lower probability of death. That's just a causal correlation related to basic physics, not a commentary on any particular incident or pattern of incidents.

shedweller wrote: »

The higher speed just made the injuries more severe.

You're on to something there. Higher speed also makes death a more likely outcome.

shedweller

Double post

bigboss1986

billie1b wrote: »

My record, Dublin to Ringaskiddy, 270km, 2h 15mins, used 25 litres of diesel, way home Ringaskiddy to Dublin, 270km, 2h 50mins, used 32 litres of diesel

Nice Galway-Dublin Airport 1h 10min,in RX8 .I used nearly full tank.I love thirsty Wankel

pafro

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No, because no such claim is being made.

The level of speed at impact was undoubtedly a factor in the severity of the crash, because it always is, without exception. If they were travelling at a lower speed when the crash occurred (or even a low speed, though that's unlikely on an autobahn one supposes) there was a lower probability of death. That's just a causal correlation related to basic physics, not a commentary on any particular incident or pattern of incidents.




You're on to something there. Higher speed also makes death a more likely outcome.

You are just assuming that the injured or dead people were driving faster because it was on a unrestricted piece of the Autobahn.

Unless research is being done based on speed at impact the numbers are not accurate.

talking about this topic always remembers me at Jeremy Clarkson:
"Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you"

bigboss1986 wrote: »

Nice Galway-Dublin Airport 1h 10min,in RX8 .I used nearly full tank.I love thirsty Wankel

During my vacation last year in Germany with my own car. (4.5 V8 SUV)
1 empty tank after 240 km... my tank holds 100 liters of petrol

But as stated before, dont care much

Iwannahurl

pafro wrote: »

I was surprised during a business trip in the US in August that some states lift the speed limit on the freeways.

The setting of speed limits in many American states is a bit of a nonsense, and they have not done as well as Europe in terms of overall road death reductions.

The recent death of the 2 Fast 2 Furious star (Paul Walker) actually occurred on a road where the local roads authority had raised the speed limit from 35 to 45 mph, in accordance with the daft 85th Percentile rule. That's a comment on the road and the US method of setting speed limits by the way, not on the tragic death of Paul Walker.

unkel

pafro wrote: »

4.5 V8 SUV

S, Turbo or Turbo S?

billie1b

bigboss1986 wrote: »

Nice Galway-Dublin Airport 1h 10min,in RX8 .I used nearly full tank.I love thirsty Wankel

Nice, mine was just your run of the mill Pathfinder, find it great with the juice though

pafro

unkel wrote: »

S, Turbo or Turbo S?

Just the S.
There was no Turbo available when I was looking for mine.
(was looking for nearly 6 months)
And of course, 3 weeks after I bought mine, 2 Turbos were on Donedeal... :eek:

Iwannahurl

pafro wrote: »

You are just assuming that the injured or dead people were driving faster because it was on a unrestricted piece of the Autobahn.

Unless research is being done based on speed at impact the numbers are not accurate.

talking about this topic always remembers me at Jeremy Clarkson:
"Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you"

Jeremy Clarkson is a professional oaf, and though I find him entertaining at times I wouldn't take him seriously on the subject.

I'm not assuming anything about individual crashes on German autobahns. There is a large body of research on the subject of speed versus risk of fatality, and it all points in the same direction.

Discussing speed and crash risk on Boards often reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson too. Here's the fuzzy-headed libertarian overgrown schoolboy, just for laughs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGkKDaYd3Mo

Chimaera

Speed in and of itself is not a cause of accidents. If it were, then we'd all be crashing once we exceed the speed limit (this is what the 'Speed Kills' propagandists would have us believe!).

It becomes a factor when a driver makes a mistake. That mistake might be misjudging the appropriate speed for the conditions, or failing to spot the child that's just left the footpath and disappeared between two parked cars, or not checking their mirrors before changing lanes on the motorway, or deciding to overtake going into a bend, etc. Now their speed is a factor: is it too high to allow corrective action to be taken? Is it high enough to cause death upon collision?

Hitting another car head on, you're screwed at anything above 60 km/h because it becomes the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at >120 km/h. Front seat occupants are dead or near as damn it, rear seat might survive if the whiplash doesn't kill them. This is why overtaking on blind bends or on hills should carry much greater penalties than exceeding the speed limit IMO. And if you look at road collision statistics, head on collisions on N and R roads are the single biggest cause of death on our roads, every year. So driving too fast really isn't the problem people think it is: stay on your own side of the road if you can't see enough of it to get back over safely.

I'd go so far as to say most road deaths here would be eliminated if people properly obeyed road markings and road positioning rules. How often have you had a near miss on a country road because someone coming against you around a bend was slightly creeping across the white line? Maybe you had to swerve a bit or jam on the brakes? Or you're the one creeping across the line and had to make a last minute correction when someone came around that bend against you? People might shrug it off but like most aspects of human behaviour, it can become habituated the more you get away with it. You start by justifying it in a situation where you have full sight around the bend, and after a while, the justifications stop, then the thought process stops - it becomes automatic to cross that line on a bend. Too many people stop thinking when they're driving!

I've seen a car barrel roll down a motorway at 120 km/h and the driver walked out of it (ambulance still boarded him as a precaution). Spinning and rolling are relatively safe ways to lose control because a lot of the car's energy is dissipated gradually. It's absolutely true that it's not the speed that kills you but the sudden stop. The harder you decelerate, the greater the force applied to your body. Newton's Second Law kids: F=ma. The problem here is the collateral damage caused by a car spinning or rolling, and it's assuming that the occupants are properly restrained.

Iwannahurl

Chimaera wrote: »

Speed in and of itself is not a cause of accidents. If it were, then we'd all be crashing once we exceed the speed limit (this is what the 'Speed Kills' propagandists would have us believe!).

...

It's absolutely true that it's not the speed that kills you but the sudden stop.

Speed Kills is a slogan (as used in road safety PSAs for example), not a scientific conclusion. Stating that speed is a major risk factor in road crashes is not propaganda, it is an observation based on a substantial body of evidence.

The "sudden stop" soundbite is also a slogan, and it's a truism that contributes nothing useful either to debate about road safety policy or to the scientific research underpinning it.

Road crashes are multifactorial in nature, and therefore it is not always possible to say whether speed was the cause of any one incident.

Consider the following scenario:

An 82-year-old driver, with past history of cardio-vascular disease, was told that his condition would not affect his fitness to drive as long as he complied to his medication. At the time, his physician was so concerned about his cardio-vascular condition that he did not think of assessing his cognitive state. He was therefore not aware that his patient was already suffering from mild dementia.

After forgetting to take his medication for several days, the patient’s heart condition severely worsened while he was driving. He lost consciousness and his vehicle hit the side of the road before continuing onto the sidewalk. Unfortunately, at the same time, a 17-year-old student was speeding down the same sidewalk on his scooter and could not stop in time before hitting the side of the moving car. The velocity of the impact immediately broke the young man’s left femur before he flew over the car and landed on the sidewalk causing superficial skin wounds and a few bruises.

What are the causes of the fracture?

Source: http://www.omicsonline.org/causality-in-applied-behavioural-science-a-call-for-transversal-research%20in-traffic-medicine-2157-7145.S1-004.pdf

Causality can be a complex issue, all the more so when human behaviour is involved. What do we mean by causation? That's often hard enough to work out in controlled research settings, and it's even more difficult to do in (literally) messy real-life situations after some event has already occurred. What we observe are the effects, and then we try to work out what the cause might be.

For example, when one turns a light switch to the “on” position, one normally sees the instant effect of the light going on. Nevertheless, the causal mechanism for getting a light to shine involves more than turning a light switch to “on.” Suppose a storm has downed the electric lines to the building, or the wiring is faulty, or the bulb is burned out—in any of these cases, turning the switch on will have no effect. One cause of the light going on is having the switch in the proper position, but along with it we must have a supply of power to the circuit, good wiring, and a working bulb. When all other factors are in place, turning the switch will cause the light to go on, but if one or more of the other factors is lacking, the light will not go on.

Despite the tendency to consider a switch as the unique cause of turning on a light, the complete causal mechanism is more intricate, and the switch is only one component of several. The tendency to identify the switch as the unique cause stems from its usual role as the final factor that acts in the causal mechanism. The wiring can be considered part of the causal mechanism, but once it is put in place, it seldom warrants further attention. The switch, however, is often the only part of the mechanism that needs to be activated to obtain the effect of turning on the light. The effect usually occurs immediately after turning on the switch, and as a result we slip into the frame of thinking in which we identify the switch as a unique cause. The inadequacy of this assumption is emphasized when the bulb goes bad and needs to be replaced.

These concepts of causation that are established empirically early in life are too rudimentary to serve well as the basis for scientific theories.

Source: http://www.prepacvpm.org/wordpress/resources/_Exam_Topics_2012/3_EpiBiostats/06_Journal%20Articles%20Epi%20Evaluation%20Practice/2005_CausationandCausalInference_AJPH_Rothman.pdf

TLDR: it is an established fact that speed is a major risk factor in road crashes, especially fatal ones. The science isn't perfect, and research is still going on, but there is plenty of evidence already to justify limiting speed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16256932
http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed.pdf
http://www.etsc.eu/documents/Speed_Fact_Sheet_1.pdf

creedp

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Speed Kills is a slogan (as used in road safety PSAs for example), not a scientific conclusion. Stating that speed is a major risk factor in road crashes is not propaganda, it is an observation based on a substantial body of evidence.

The "sudden stop" soundbite is also a slogan, and it's a truism that contributes nothing useful either to debate about road safety policy or to the scientific research underpinning it.

Road crashes are multifactorial in nature, and therefore it is not always possible to say whether speed was the cause of any one incident.

Consider the following scenario:

An 82-year-old driver, with past history of cardio-vascular disease, was told that his condition would not affect his fitness to drive as long as he complied to his medication. At the time, his physician was so concerned about his cardio-vascular condition that he did not think of assessing his cognitive state. He was therefore not aware that his patient was already suffering from mild dementia.

After forgetting to take his medication for several days, the patient’s heart condition severely worsened while he was driving. He lost consciousness and his vehicle hit the side of the road before continuing onto the sidewalk. Unfortunately, at the same time, a 17-year-old student was speeding down the same sidewalk on his scooter and could not stop in time before hitting the side of the moving car. The velocity of the impact immediately broke the young man’s left femur before he flew over the car and landed on the sidewalk causing superficial skin wounds and a few bruises.

What are the causes of the fracture?

Source: http://www.omicsonline.org/causality-in-applied-behavioural-science-a-call-for-transversal-research%20in-traffic-medicine-2157-7145.S1-004.pdf

Causality can be a complex issue, all the more so when human behaviour is involved. What do we mean by causation? That's often hard enough to work out in controlled research settings, and it's even more difficult to do in (literally) messy real-life situations after some event has already occurred. What we observe are the effects, and then we try to work out what the cause might be.

For example, when one turns a light switch to the “on” position, one normally sees the instant effect of the light going on. Nevertheless, the causal mechanism for getting a light to shine involves more than turning a light switch to “on.” Suppose a storm has downed the electric lines to the building, or the wiring is faulty, or the bulb is burned out—in any of these cases, turning the switch on will have no effect. One cause of the light going on is having the switch in the proper position, but along with it we must have a supply of power to the circuit, good wiring, and a working bulb. When all other factors are in place, turning the switch will cause the light to go on, but if one or more of the other factors is lacking, the light will not go on.

Despite the tendency to consider a switch as the unique cause of turning on a light, the complete causal mechanism is more intricate, and the switch is only one component of several. The tendency to identify the switch as the unique cause stems from its usual role as the final factor that acts in the causal mechanism. The wiring can be considered part of the causal mechanism, but once it is put in place, it seldom warrants further attention. The switch, however, is often the only part of the mechanism that needs to be activated to obtain the effect of turning on the light. The effect usually occurs immediately after turning on the switch, and as a result we slip into the frame of thinking in which we identify the switch as a unique cause. The inadequacy of this assumption is emphasized when the bulb goes bad and needs to be replaced.

These concepts of causation that are established empirically early in life are too rudimentary to serve well as the basis for scientific theories.

Source: http://www.prepacvpm.org/wordpress/resources/_Exam_Topics_2012/3_EpiBiostats/06_Journal%20Articles%20Epi%20Evaluation%20Practice/2005_CausationandCausalInference_AJPH_Rothman.pdf

TLDR: it is an established fact that speed is a major risk factor in road crashes, especially fatal ones. The science isn't perfect, and research is still going on, but there is plenty of evidence already to justify limiting speed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16256932
http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed.pdf
http://www.etsc.eu/documents/Speed_Fact_Sheet_1.pdf

All very interesting stuff and while there is no doubt that if you are involved in a collision then the higher the speed the greater the impact. On that basis I'm so worried after looking at all your links above that I refuse to drive again until the max speed limit is 60kmph so that in the event of a head on collision with a guy who, because of his coronary condition and dementia maybe shouldn't have been driving in the first place, I have a high probability of walking away. Maybe a campaign on this forum would assist in achieving this reduction.

Iwannahurl

creedp wrote: »

I refuse to drive again until the max speed limit is 60kmph so that in the event of a head on collision ... I have a high probability of walking away.

Or you could just walk.

4th horsemen

Motorway driving should def be part of the driving test , and Why wouldn't it be especially with new motorways happening andespecially since so many people don't know about when to drive in left and right lanes.

120 to 130 in fairness is not that much of a difference and I'd have nothing against it.
Id rather see it go to 160 tbh!!!