Speeding is endemic in this country, what can be done about it?

liamog

Macy0161 wrote: »

Talk of increasing speed limits is nuts. It is actually quite scary at times walking the rural roads where I live, and even sometimes within the village limits where there appears to be zero regard for the limits. This is massively exacerbated by many drivers impatience where slowing down, and passing a pedestrian safely is not something to be done, as it may cost a few extra seconds if there's on-coming cars.

The only place I think speed limits need a review is on motorways and high quality dual carriageways.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Things won't change without enforcement, but there's no political will for it, and the RSA aren't really pushing it either. Much more widespread average speed cameras is really the only solution, until the tech is available.

Our approach to enforcement is wrong in this country, the punishments are too high and seldom enforced. It's better to give people an annoying ticket every week than it is to give a punitive ticket once every 5 years. The level of enforcement for all traffic offenses is very low, but with penalty points included (and the affect on insurance premiums) the punishment is too high. This leads to a general desire to not enforce the rules too strictly. People's behaviour would change very quickly if they every time they sped through the village they had to go and pay a €10 fine at their local motor tax office.

Macy0161

Well I think it's clear there's an issue on enforcement, and the lack of use of available technology. I do disagree with the penalties being too harsh - when points were introduced there was an immediate effect on driver behaviour. That waned only when it became obvious nothing had changed regarding enforcement.

It's just one of many issues though - there's just as significant issue with inappropriate speed, particularly on the issue on driving at a speed for which you can safely stop in the distance you can see. I'm no idea how that can be enforced while there is still such relunctance to make use of dashcam/ bicyclecam/ bikecam/ pedestrian footage in an easy way like other jurisdictions seem able to do.

Furze99

There's driving quickly and there's driving dangerously. They're two different things, which are conflated together in rather arbitrary speed designations. Speed limits and therefore speeding are a very coarse tool by which to measure dangerous driving, which latter is what matters. I suspect that near enough 100% of drivers technically exceed speed limits at some point in their daily travels.

theguzman

I just drive with cruise control on as often as is practically safe, it has saved my ass at least half a dozen or more times over the last 3 years primarily in 60km/h and 50km/h zones where they are shooting fish in a barrel. I also notice less people flashing the headlights to warn you like before. If a Guard catches you fine they you are deserving of it because you will clearly be acting the clown and exceeding the speed limit excessively. A speedvan hitting you for 52km/h in a 50km/h zone is just down right disgraceful, especially in cars with analogue and MPH speedos where the margin of error is questionable. A guard won't likely hit you for 52km in a 50 and he will wait for the pillock coming through at 80-90km/h to make an example of them.

liamog

Macy0161 wrote: »

Well I think it's clear there's an issue on enforcement, and the lack of use of available technology. I do disagree with the penalties being too harsh - when points were introduced there was an immediate effect on driver behaviour. That waned only when it became obvious nothing had changed regarding enforcement.

I regularly drive down Chapel Hill in Lucan, it's one of those roads where a 30km/h was implemented at all times. I flip the cruise control on the car and let it handle itself. It's very rare that the car in front of me will do the speed limit, and there have been multiple occasions where professional drivers (taxi's and van's) will overtake.

I would much rather see a driver given a €10 fine there every week and enforcement becomes a given, than the current system where a Garda might show up once in 3 years and give everyone an €80 fine and 3 points. There is a reluctance to enforce our current traffic laws because the punishments do not fit the consequence of the action.

Macy0161

theguzman wrote: »

A speedvan hitting you for 52km/h in a 50km/h zone is just down right disgraceful, especially in cars with analogue and MPH speedos where the margin of error is questionable. A guard won't likely hit you for 52km in a 50 and he will wait for the pillock coming through at 80-90km/h to make an example of them.

Anyone done for 52 in a 50 zone, the speedo was showing closer to 60. The margin of error is built into the cars.

liamog

Macy0161 wrote: »

Anyone done for 52 in a 50 zone, the speedo was showing closer to 60. The margin of error is built into the cars.

Depends on your car, when my digital speedo is showing 52km/h, the car is travelling at 50km/h. This is validated against GPS Speeds and the Scoreboards Fingal County Council like to install.

Macy0161

liamog wrote: »

Depends on your car, when my digital speedo is showing 52km/h, the car is travelling at 50km/h. This is validated against GPS Speeds and the Scoreboards Fingal County Council like to install.

So the speedo is still showing over 50?

liamog wrote: »

I would much rather see a driver given a €10 fine there every week and enforcement becomes a given, than the current system where a Garda might show up once in 3 years and give everyone an €80 fine and 3 points. There is a reluctance to enforce our current traffic laws because the punishments do not fit the consequence of the action.

I think it's more the perception is that road traffic laws aren't as important, rather than the punishments being too severe. And that includes the gardaí. They're institutional opposed to the use (particularly the easy use) of dash and other camera footage for enforcement of road traffic laws. When they're investigating "real crime" they put out press releases looking for dashcam footage.

That's reflected in the courts system, where we can see the sentences where people are killed or seriously injured in Road Traffic incidents versus any other circumstances. Lives are valued less in our courts if it was a traffic incident.

magicbastarder

liamog wrote: »

Depends on your car, when my digital speedo is showing 52km/h, the car is travelling at 50km/h. This is validated against GPS Speeds and the Scoreboards Fingal County Council like to install.

your car is not allowed understate your speed, but can overstate it by 10% + 10km/h (according to this )

if you have a satnav, it should be easy enough to tell how accurate your speedo is.

liamog

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think it's more the perception is that road traffic laws aren't as important, rather than the punishments being too severe. And that includes the gardaí.

I don't disagree with you here, but the answer is more enforcement and less punishment. The system should be designed to correct behaviour not punish offenders. Under the current system if we had one week where every traffic law was enforced 100% there wouldn't be a single person in the country who wasn't banned from driving or facing charges for pedestrian and cycling offences.

Macy0161

liamog wrote: »

Under the current system if we had one week where every traffic law was enforced 100% there wouldn't be a single person in the country who wasn't banned from driving or facing charges for pedestrian and cycling offences.

I'd be pretty sure on the pedestrian bit to be honest - I'm not sure what law you think every pedestrian is breaking every week! Majority of cyclists would be fine too. About the only thing would be the ancient light laws that mention lens size.

liamog

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'd be pretty sure on the pedestrian bit to be honest - I'm not sure what law you think every pedestrian is breaking every week! Majority of cyclists would be fine too. About the only thing would be the ancient light laws that mention lens size.

I know I'd be regularly guilty of crossing the road within 15m of pedestrian crossing without using the crossing, and of failing to only start to cross when the green man is showing. Similarly when I'm on the bike, it's almost a given that cyclists will pass the stop line when reaching a junction, you end up in a much safer position in front of the stopped cars, but technically you've breached the red light. I also regularly dismount the bike on the footpath outside my house instead of the 1m further away where it's still the road.

Strumms

Vestiapx wrote: »

Increase the limits, they are based on cars from the 60s.

They are also to be fair based on absolute fractions of traffic on our roads compared to now..

magicbastarder

also, road deaths in the 60s peaked at 462 in 1969; which as you mention, probably was a small fraction of traffic.

nj27

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Great argument for speed limiters on cars.

Fair point, but you could also argue you don’t have to use all of the power all of the time. Speed is also an issue of responsibility IMO.

Macy0161

liamog wrote: »

I know I'd be regularly guilty of crossing the road within 15m of pedestrian crossing without using the crossing, and of failing to only start to cross when the green man is showing. Similarly when I'm on the bike, it's almost a given that cyclists will pass the stop line when reaching a junction, you end up in a much safer position in front of the stopped cars, but technically you've breached the red light. I also regularly dismount the bike on the footpath outside my house instead of the 1m further away where it's still the road.

In a rural location, there would be much less opportunity for either to be fair. The only reason I have to walk on the road when there is a pavement available is due to lazy motorists blocking the pavement opposite the centra (on double yellows).

liamog

Macy0161 wrote: »

In a rural location, there would be much less opportunity for either to be fair. The only reason I have to walk on the road when there is a pavement available is due to lazy motorists blocking the pavement opposite the centra (on double yellows).

Having lived in rural areas, I'd of been guilty of using the road without due consideration when crossing the road to walk on the outside of a bend instead of sticking to walking towards traffic.
Again an example of doing something that makes it safer for everyone but would be against the "rules"

Uncle Pierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You did notice the bit of my statement that you didn't highlight in bold?

Yes thank you, I did notice that bit, as I read your post properly. I don't think however that you read my post properly, since you don't seem to have grasped its core point.

There's no real issue with the bit I didn't put in bold, because if you are indeed commenting on those RSA stats, it's reasonably valid to say there are "large percentages of drivers speeding on all categories of roads".

I say "no real issue" and "reasonably valid" because the proportions speeding (according to those stats) on certain types of roads were as low as 5%, 9%, 13%, 21% and 23%. "Large" is obviously as subjective term - I wouldn't consider 13%, for example, to be large. But maybe you do. That's your perogative.

But it remains wholly incorrect to use those stats to state (as you did) that there are "98% of drivers speeding on urban roads", when that 98% figure applies only to urban national roads with a 30 km/h limit, and when there were four other types of urban roads surveyed too.

Simple maths shows a total of 3,640 vehicles surveyed on urban roads, and 2,353 of them deemed to be speeding. That's 65%.

I repeat: still a significant proportion, but far short of 98%.

Podge_irl

liamog wrote: »

Having lived in rural areas, I'd of been guilty of using the road without due consideration when crossing the road to walk on the outside of a bend instead of sticking to walking towards traffic.
Again an example of doing something that makes it safer for everyone but would be against the "rules"

That is very obviously not illegal. Speeding is. Conflating the two is ridiculous.

Timing belt

Tyrone212 wrote: »

I think eventually cars will be fitted with a device that prevents them from exceeding the speed limit depending on what road they are on and the speed limit for said road. In cases of emergency this can be overridden but it will be followed up with to make sure an actual emergency was underway.

Until then I don't think much of a dent can happen.

Restricting the ability to accelerate out of a potential accident will only lead to more deaths. Two weeks on the M7 a artic truck driver fell asleep at the wheel and wondered onto the fast lane and nearly crushed me. I broke but could see a pile up happening as cars behind got closer to my rear view mirror. In the end I accelerated and drove on the grass verge an inch away from the barrier to get out of being crushed or causing a pile up. Speed on the motorway is not the issue it is stupid drivers pulled no in on hard shoulder, not keeping to the left lane and driving to close to the car infront that cause accidents. Rather than reduce last speed limits it might be more worth while enforcing the rules of the road

AndrewJRenko

Timing belt wrote: »

Restricting the ability to accelerate out of a potential accident will only lead to more deaths. Two weeks on the M7 a artic truck driver fell asleep at the wheel and wondered onto the fast lane and nearly crushed me. I broke but could see a pile up happening as cars behind got closer to my rear view mirror. In the end I accelerated and drove on the grass verge an inch away from the barrier to get out of being crushed or causing a pile up. Speed on the motorway is not the issue it is stupid drivers pulled no in on hard shoulder, not keeping to the left lane and driving to close to the car infront that cause accidents. Rather than reduce last speed limits it might be more worth while enforcing the rules of the road

Seems to work all right with HGVs and coaches that have operated with speed limiters for years. They don't seem to get into loads of accidents collisions as a result of their limiters. Once they're fitted to all cars, the lads behind you won't be tearing around either.

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Yes thank you, I did notice that bit, as I read your post properly. I don't think however that you read my post properly, since you don't seem to have grasped its core point.

There's no real issue with the bit I didn't put in bold, because if you are indeed commenting on those RSA stats, it's reasonably valid to say there are "large percentages of drivers speeding on all categories of roads".

I say "no real issue" and "reasonably valid" because the proportions speeding (according to those stats) on certain types of roads were as low as 5%, 9%, 13%, 21% and 23%. "Large" is obviously as subjective term - I wouldn't consider 13%, for example, to be large. But maybe you do. That's your perogative.

But it remains wholly incorrect to use those stats to state (as you did) that there are "98% of drivers speeding on urban roads", when that 98% figure applies only to urban national roads with a 30 km/h limit, and when there were four other types of urban roads surveyed too.

Simple maths shows a total of 3,640 vehicles surveyed on urban roads, and 2,353 of them deemed to be speeding. That's 65%.

I repeat: still a significant proportion, but far short of 98%.

Look a the the table in the Appendix.
https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Speed/RRD_Res_20190204_FreeSpeedSurvey2018FINAL.pdf
There's a lot more %s over 50% than under 50% un the results. As you've shown yourself, 2 out of every 3 drivers surveyed was speeding.

That's a very, very serious problem.

knucklehead6

I’ll say this for Jezza. She sure does get a lot of traction in her threads.

Chris_5339762

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

The ones that do annoy me are roadworks.

Around the Dunkettle roadworks, the limits are 80 and 60. I drive at roughly those speeds. No-one, and I mean almost no-one else does.

Yes they are stupid speeds, but now I'm the hazard because I'm going half the speed of everyone else. Including lorries, buses, everything. Its honestly dangerous. However, on the one day that I do go faster you can guarantee the speed van will be somewhere.

Just to follow this up.


Pottering along at the 60kmh speed limit in the works this morning with traffic passing me at 90 - 100. See a tractor in the distance going at about 50kmh, so I speed up to about 80kmh to not take the piss but get past him at a decent speed. Car flies up behind me and lays on the horn, gesturing wildly.


I gestured rudely back when he tore past me afterwards.

Timing belt

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Seems to work all right with HGVs and coaches that have operated with speed limiters for years. They don't seem to get into loads of accidents collisions as a result of their limiters. Once they're fitted to all cars, the lads behind you won't be tearing around either.



Look a the the table in the Appendix.
https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Speed/RRD_Res_20190204_FreeSpeedSurvey2018FINAL.pdf
There's a lot more %s over 50% than under 50% un the results. As you've shown yourself, 2 out of every 3 drivers surveyed was speeding.

That's a very, very serious problem.

You assume cars were breaking the speed limit none of the cars were but the ability to accelerate out of trouble saved a serious incident.

liamog

Podge_irl wrote: »

That is very obviously not illegal. Speeding is. Conflating the two is ridiculous.

Can you cite a reason for why this would not be illegal, the only thing I can find is the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997
Which has a section rules for pedestrians

(4) Subject to sub-article (5), save when crossing the roadway, a pedestrian shall use a footway if one is provided, and if one is not provided, shall keep as near as possible to the right edge of the roadway.

It's the same regulation that confirms two cyclists can cycle alongside each other, and one can overtake the pair. I'm not sure why you are allowed to pick and choose which part of the regulation you think is valid.

My point is not to justify speeding, my argument is that nobody would benefit from a 100% crackdown on all traffic regulations.

magicbastarder

that just states you walk along the road so as to face oncoming traffic - it doesn't state that you pick your side on a bend so as to maximise visibility.

in fact the law is blind (pun intended) as to whether you walk on the inside or outside of a blind bend. it says you walk on the right.

liamog

magicbastarder wrote: »

that just states you walk along the road so as to face oncoming traffic - it doesn't state that you pick your side on a bend so as to maximise visibility.

in fact the law is blind (pun intended) as to whether you walk on the inside or outside of a blind bend. it says you walk on the right.

Exactly, in practice, I will not walk on the inside of a blind bend, instead I will cross the road and walk on the left until such time as the visibility has improved.
I would much rather be alive than be legally correct.

magicbastarder

i do like the fact that the rules of the road state you shouldn't cross the road near a parked car. that'd render large parts of dublin uncrossable.

liamog

Don't get me started on this one, I'd never be allowed to date anyone I'd given a lift.

(4) A driver shall not give simultaneous contradictory signals.

Uncle Pierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Look a the the table in the Appendix.
https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Speed/RRD_Res_20190204_FreeSpeedSurvey2018FINAL.pdf

Which table, in which appendix? There are six appendices with a total of 23 tables.

But let's presume you mean the one to which we've been referring already:

Peregrine wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There's a lot more %s over 50% than under 50% un the results.

Incorrect. Of the 16 types of road surveyed, only six have a "% speeding" figure of over 50%.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

As you've shown yourself, 2 out of every 3 drivers surveyed was speeding.

Incorrect on two counts:
1 - It's incorrect to say I showed myself that two out every three drivers surveyed was speeding. What I showed was that 65% of drivers surveyed on urban roads was speeding.

However, I now see that even this 65% figure actually overstates the extent of speeding in urban areas. if you add in the number surveyed in residential areas - as Appendix 2 of the full report that you helpfully provided the link for points out these residential areas are themselves located within urban areas - then the total figures become 2,750 deemed speeding out of a total of 5,268. This equates to 52%.

2 - It's incorrect in itself to claim that two out of every three drivers surveyed was speeding. The total number of drivers was surveyed was 12,240 and the total number deemed to be speeding was 4,623. That's 38% overall.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a very, very serious problem.

Back to subjectivity, and you may very well deem it a very, very serious problem if 52% of drivers in urban areas are over the speed limit, and 38% of drivers overall, in the very specific conditions in which the survey was conducted (see "methodology" on page 3 of the full report). But it's still a long way from your original claim that 98% of drivers are speeding.

With all due respect, your posts on this subject are a perfect example of how statistics are so often misinterpreted or misrepresented, or both.

nj27

I would like to race at Le Mans. Would bloody love to. Until such a point in time, however, I am limited to the public roads. I'd never speed, but I would love to absolutely tear around Dublin and its environs in my M3. It would excite me to no end. I am destined for Le Mans perhaps.

AndrewJRenko

Timing belt wrote: »

You assume cars were breaking the speed limit none of the cars were but the ability to accelerate out of trouble saved a serious incident.

If they weren't speeding, they'd have been able to brake out of trouble. How do coaches and HGVs manage to drive with speed limiters for years now?

magicbastarder

nj27 wrote: »

but I would love to absolutely tear around Dublin and its environs in my M3.

sounds like it was a waste buying the M3 so!

Cookie_Monster

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If they weren't speeding, they'd have been able to brake out of trouble. How do coaches and HGVs manage to drive with speed limiters for years now?

Have you ever followed a truck or bus with a speed limiter? They work in theory only, there are plenty of times I've followed the above at well above 100; 90kph limiter me arse

Macy0161

The other thing that really helps modify driver behaviour in countries that value vulnerable road users is presumed liability. We might see a few less "I came around the corner and had to slam on" incidents/ comments/ motors threads if the onus was on people driving to prove they were acting within the law. It would probably remove the need to walk on the outside of the bend as mentioned, if you could trust that motorists were driving at an appropriate speed (as they should be!)

Uncle Pierre

Macy0161 wrote: »

The other thing that really helps modify driver behaviour in countries that value vulnerable road users is presumed liability. We might see a few less "I came around the corner and had to slam on" incidents/ comments/ motors threads if the onus was on people driving to prove they were acting within the law. It would probably remove the need to walk on the outside of the bend as mentioned, if you could trust that motorists were driving at an appropriate speed (as they should be!)

The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is a basic principle of our legal system.

If you removed that right for motorists, then you'd be affording rapists, murderers, violent offenders, multi-million euro fraudsters and every other type of criminal with more protection in law than somebody who happened to be involved in a crash which may or may not have been his/her own fault.

That would be quite a change in how we do things...

Macy0161

I think presumed liability could be nailed down to just incidents of people driving motorised vehicles and vulnerable road users.

magicbastarder

we could just look at other countries and how they achieved it.
my understanding is that it's just a basic acknowledgement that the larger the vehicle, the more onus there is on the pilot of that vehicle to behave responsibly.

it doesn't mean that i will be able to blithely cycle out in front of a car on a motorway and expect the driver to be blamed.

magicbastarder

also, it seems we're the outlier on it, if this is to be believed:

At the moment, there are only four other countries in Europe that have yet to introduce the concept of presumed liability to their legal systems: Malta, Cyprus, Romania and Ireland.

https://www.eta.co.uk/2019/01/11/presumed-liability/

Isambard

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Have you ever followed a truck or bus with a speed limiter? They work in theory only, there are plenty of times I've followed the above at well above 100; 90kph limiter me arse

not so in 99% of cases.

Seth Brundle

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, it seems we're the outlier on it, if this is to be believed:

https://www.eta.co.uk/2019/01/11/presumed-liability/

Does the UK have it?

Uncle Pierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, it seems we're the outlier on it, if this is to be believed:

https://www.eta.co.uk/2019/01/11/presumed-liability/

Ah, I see. It applies in civil law. I presumed the call was to introduce it in criminal law.

magicbastarder

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Does the UK have it?

my pull quote from that article made it look confusing - 'only four other countries in europe', so the UK would make that five without it, when that article was written.

magicbastarder

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Ah, I see. It applies in civil law. I presumed the call was to introduce it in criminal law.

yeah, i think it mainly becomes an insurance issue more than anything else.

Macy0161

A few no claims bonus gone, as insurance companies settled, and driver behaviour changes. Pocket is where a lot of people who drive really fear the consequences, not lives.

liamog

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, it seems we're the outlier on it, if this is to be believed:

https://www.eta.co.uk/2019/01/11/presumed-liability/

Not sure about Romania, but the rest of those countries (including UK as that's who the article is about) follow a common law system due to their history with the British Empire.

Generally strict liability is avoided in common law systems as intent to commit a crime (or knowledge that your actions may cause one to occur) is treated more seriously than the actual crime itself.

AndrewJRenko

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Have you ever followed a truck or bus with a speed limiter? They work in theory only, there are plenty of times I've followed the above at well above 100; 90kph limiter me arse

So you're saying we need more enforcement and more truck inspections? Great point.

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Which table, in which appendix? There are six appendices with a total of 23 tables.

But let's presume you mean the one to which we've been referring already:



Incorrect. Of the 16 types of road surveyed, only six have a "% speeding" figure of over 50%.



Incorrect on two counts:
1 - It's incorrect to say I showed myself that two out every three drivers surveyed was speeding. What I showed was that 65% of drivers surveyed on urban roads was speeding.

However, I now see that even this 65% figure actually overstates the extent of speeding in urban areas. if you add in the number surveyed in residential areas - as Appendix 2 of the full report that you helpfully provided the link for points out these residential areas are themselves located within urban areas - then the total figures become 2,750 deemed speeding out of a total of 5,268. This equates to 52%.

2 - It's incorrect in itself to claim that two out of every three drivers surveyed was speeding. The total number of drivers was surveyed was 12,240 and the total number deemed to be speeding was 4,623. That's 38% overall.



Back to subjectivity, and you may very well deem it a very, very serious problem if 52% of drivers in urban areas are over the speed limit, and 38% of drivers overall, in the very specific conditions in which the survey was conducted (see "methodology" on page 3 of the full report). But it's still a long way from your original claim that 98% of drivers are speeding.

With all due respect, your posts on this subject are a perfect example of how statistics are so often misinterpreted or misrepresented, or both.

If you're quibbling over whether it is one-third or two-thirds or damn near three-thirds of drivers breaking speed limits, you've pretty much lost the battle anyway. It shouldn't be any drivers.

We've allowed this tolerance of widespread ignoring of speed limits to emerge. Just head round the M50 any weekend at 100 kmph and see how many vehicles pass you if you don't believe me.
Excessive speed is a factor in about one-third of road deaths.
https://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Anti-Speeding-/
But yeah, let's play statistical games to avoid facing up to it.

liamog

1/3 of the fatal collisions cited excessive speed as a contributory factor, the stats show that it's excessive speed on regional roads (80km/h) between 10pm and 4am on a weekend after socialising by male drivers under 35.
It kind of leads credence to the argument that we could increase the 120km/h limit on motorways.

B00MSTICK

I'd be surprised if I didn't break the speed limit on the vast majority of motorway journeys I do. Now that would be maybe ~5% over the limit or perhaps a bit more when transitioning from something like a 100km/h or 120km/h to a 80km/h or vice versa.

Sure if you are doing say 20%+ over the limit you are driving recklessly, especially in a 30 or 50 zone, but if you are going to tell me that doing 125 - 135+km/h in a 120 zone (while taking driving conditions/traffic into account) is increasing your risk of a fatal collision by a meaningful amount then I think you are deluded.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

We've allowed this tolerance of widespread ignoring of speed limits to emerge. Just head round the M50 any weekend at 100 kmph and see how many vehicles pass you if you don't believe me.

So by your own logic we should have a ton of deaths on the M50 because of the constant speeding right? How many deaths do we have? Please only include figures where speed is the sole contributing factor.
I don't think its fair to involve fatalities that include pedestrians, cyclists or anyone else that shouldn't be on the motorway or some moron thinking doing 100km is fine when its snowy and icy out.

Do the same thing you've suggested, sit on the M50 for any length of time and see how many people are in the wrong lane and making last minute dashes across multiple lanes for an exit, changing lanes without indicating, sitting in the overtaking lanes, undertaking (overtaking on the left) or veering from one lane to another without warning etc. You'll probably have a smaller number compared to those going above the speed limit but unless the speeder is taking the piss I'm not sure they are the most likely to cause an accident.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Excessive speed is a factor in about one-third of road deaths.
https://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safet...nti-Speeding-/
But yeah, let's play statistical games to avoid facing up to it.

Some of those stats are pretty shocking alright

• Of the 274 deaths where speed was a factor, 19% (52 deaths) of these were due to speed as the sole contributing factor.
  - So basically of the 867 fatal collisions, 6% of the deaths is due to speeding solely. Or in other words, 94% are due to other factors too. I'm also not sure how you can say it was the sole contributing factor when the driver could easily have been speeding and not paying attention for example.
• 31 of those 52 deaths were single vehicle collisions.
  - I could be wrong but surely being on a busy motorway, managing to kill yourself solely by speeding and also avoid colliding with any other cars cannot be easy. Even in an empty motorway, there must be some driver error involved or they are really pushing it (perhaps in an unsuitable car)
• Only 3% of deaths occurred on motorways
  - There's no breakdown as to whether these were solely due to speeding or if there were other factors, there was definitely a death of a cyclist in 2014 but again they simply shouldn't have been on a motorway on a bicycle.
• A third of those involved in the fatal collisions did not have insurance
  - This tells you the type of person we are dealing with, I have a feeling they'd be in the reckless speeding category rather than the few blips above the limit right?
  

So yea, your argument is completely invalid.

magicbastarder

liamog wrote: »

1/3 of the fatal collisions cited excessive speed as a contributory factor

i know i'm going to sound like a stuck record here, but there's a difference between a contributory factor and 'just' being a factor.
i.e. where someone's speed didn't cause the crash but closed off an option to avoid it.

how fast a car can brake basically depends on how fast the brakes can absorb energy (and brakes are phenomenal things really, if you consider the amount of energy they can absorb in a few seconds which would otherwise do massive damage to a car).

anyway - the difference in energy between doing 70 and doing 50 is a factor of two; or in other words it takes as long to brake from 70 to 50 as it takes to brake from 50 to 0 (this is ignoring reaction time). scrubbing energy from the motion of the car is usually linear, but scrubbing *speed* is not.
i.e. if you have to slam on at 70, you're going *above* 50 for as long as you'd take to brake to a stop if you had to slam on at 50.

or another calculation - the difference between doing 60 and doing 30 is a factor of four. i.e. braking to a stop from 60 means you spend three quarters of the time getting from 60 to 30, and the last quarter getting from 30 to 0.
but most people would probably expect a linear relationship between speed and braking.