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

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.

liamog

That's a line from the same RSA study which is being used to condemn speeding.
It was the only factor in 19% of fatal collisions.

The whole suggestion of increasing the limit on motorways to 130km/h and dropping to 110km/h during poor conditions was based on the measured performance of modern vehicles.
The road is designed with x reaction time and y braking distance to give a stopping distance of y. If vehicle performance has improved (which it has) then the same parameters can apply from a higher speed.

Interestingly the Danes did a test found that vehicle performance in 2007 no longer matched the assumptions derived from US DOT testing in the 1960's. They increased the motorway limit from 110km/h to 130km/h (with 110km/h in cities).
They found that road fatalities decreased. The study was conducted by the Danish equivalent of the RSA.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/86295/speed-limit-increase-makes-roads-safer

Cookie_Monster

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

nope, that is not what I said, I just said i don't believe speed limiter actually work in the real world.
I would suggest that more inspections are generally required though.

Uncle Pierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

I am not suggesting that there is not an issue with excessive speeding by some drivers, or that no action is needed to curb it. I am merely pointing out that statistics are frequently misinterpreted and/or mispresented, whether wilfully or not.

For example, there are no statistics to back up your initial assertion that "98% of drivers are speeding". The 98% figure refers specifically to car drivers who are travelling along urban national roads with a 30 km/h limit in unconstrained circumstances - i.e. with a headway / gap of at least 200 metres on roads where it was possible to exceed the speed limit.

That's a very small subset of all drivers. It's probably even a very small subset of all drivers on urban national roads with a 30 km/h limit, since it's rare that you'd have at least 200 metres headway on them anyway.

I have pointed out this and other examples of how you have misinterpreted or misrepresented statistics. It seems that rather than admit your errors, you are instead replying along the lines of "so what? People speed. It doesn't matter how many."

For what it's worth, I'd be inclined to agree with you. For example, I'd be far more concerned about just one eejit bombing along a motorway or dual carriageway at 150 km/h or some other eejit driving through a busy town centre at 80 km/h than I would about twenty people driving at 32 km/h on an urban 30 km/h road at 5.30 a.m. (which is the time at which surveying for the RSA study began on some urban roads).

Finally, I don't regard this as either a quibble or a battle. It's merely a request to anybody who wishes to use statistics in a discussion to make sure that they're doing so properly.

Chris_5339762

To be honest, I don't really understand speeding. Just don't go faster than the number on the sign. It's straightforward. Sure, some of them are stupid, but obey them anyway.

I use my limiter all the time. Have it calibrated - 55kmh on the speedometer is exactly 50kmh measured by my handheld GPS.

Set the limiter to that, done and dusted. No worry.

Seth Brundle

Many roads are designed to encourage speeds faster than the speed limit. Big wide open dual carriageways create a perception that it is a safe road. Stick some pedestrains on the adjacent paths and cyclists in the adjacent bus lanes and the risks increase so the limit is lowered
However, the perception when driving that it is a safe road remains.
e.g. https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3429789,-6.317605,3a,75y,73.6h,102.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC_pdZn1naxrO8yNMHDqbog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Wilmol

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.

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.

Vast majority of the time everyone drives below the speed limit. Almost always you will see train type convoys with a driver at the top going 60 kmh in an 80 dragging other wagons (cars) behind unless you drive at midnight.

Wilmol

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't really understand speeding. Just don't go faster than the number on the sign. It's straightforward. Sure, some of them are stupid, but obey them anyway.

I use my limiter all the time. Have it calibrated - 55kmh on the speedometer is exactly 50kmh measured by my handheld GPS.

Set the limiter to that, done and dusted. No worry.

Flawless argument there.

AndrewJRenko

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

I am not suggesting that there is not an issue with excessive speeding by some drivers, or that no action is needed to curb it. I am merely pointing out that statistics are frequently misinterpreted and/or mispresented, whether wilfully or not.

For example, there are no statistics to back up your initial assertion that "98% of drivers are speeding". The 98% figure refers specifically to car drivers who are travelling along urban national roads with a 30 km/h limit in unconstrained circumstances - i.e. with a headway / gap of at least 200 metres on roads where it was possible to exceed the speed limit.

That's a very small subset of all drivers. It's probably even a very small subset of all drivers on urban national roads with a 30 km/h limit, since it's rare that you'd have at least 200 metres headway on them anyway.

I have pointed out this and other examples of how you have misinterpreted or misrepresented statistics. It seems that rather than admit your errors, you are instead replying along the lines of "so what? People speed. It doesn't matter how many."

For what it's worth, I'd be inclined to agree with you. For example, I'd be far more concerned about just one eejit bombing along a motorway or dual carriageway at 150 km/h or some other eejit driving through a busy town centre at 80 km/h than I would about twenty people driving at 32 km/h on an urban 30 km/h road at 5.30 a.m. (which is the time at which surveying for the RSA study began on some urban roads).

Finally, I don't regard this as either a quibble or a battle. It's merely a request to anybody who wishes to use statistics in a discussion to make sure that they're doing so properly.

Except I didn't say that "98% of drivers are speeding". I said "98% of drivers are speeding on urban roads". I didn't give the full clarification of 30 kpmh roads and 50 kmph roads, and I didn't give the full research methodology of how it was measured, but I'm not writing an academic paper here.

beggars_bush

Smaller cars
Cars have gotten huge in the last 20 years

AndrewJRenko

B00MSTICK wrote: »

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.

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.



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.

We may not have a tonne of deaths on the M50, but we do have an alarming frequency of collisions, often incurring substantial costs to manage and recover, and substantial delays to other users:

https://twitter.com/search?q=M50%20collision&src=typed_query&f=live

And yeah, there was a drunk cyclist killed on the M1 once, but I'm not sure that says a whole lot to invalidate any argument.