These programmes are made by cynical cut-rate companies who spend their time scrounging video from police forces that should know better, then trying to make moral points with it. Unless you have a voice-over from those involved in a pursuit, so you hear the full story, the whole thing is meaningless.
I was a police press officer and was thoroughly fed up with being pestered by ignorant kid researchers saying 'got any video, got any video'.
The whole process is pathetic, including the involvement of the viewers.
Rant over.
|
|
|
Brake used to claim that 1/3 of fatal accidents were due to speeding.
I don't think that they are lying with that statement... its just that many people assume that to be speeding you must be exceeding the speed limit...
Truth is that you are speeding when you are exceeding the speed that is safe for that particular section of road in the weather and road conditions and visibility current at the time... That could quite easily be below the speed limit as well as above it...
Trouble is that requires thought, and in the case of reports in the press, explanation... its therefore easier (and press lazyness) to just say speed kills without explaining why...
Edited by b308 on 09/08/2010 at 15:56
|
|
Programmes like that literally demonstrate the origins of the phrases 'car-crash television' and 'ambulance chasing'. No rational discussion of the subject, just sensationalist headline-seeking tabloid journalism. Grab the viewers and keep them hooked with more blood and speed; don't baffle them with intelligence.
|
|
|
|
B308: Whilst you make many good points, the context in which Brake made the claims was an interview on R4 about speed cameras, and it was fairly clear that by speeding they meant exceeding the posted speed limit. However, the official statistics I have seen indicate that significantly less than 1/3 of accidents have speed as a primary or significant factor. I think the value is more like 10% at most. So not insignificant, but it does indicate other causes are more significant e.g. lack of attention.
But you do mention an interesting phrase, namely 'speed kills', which is nonsense. An impact with a hard object, such as a car, kills. But from what I have seen it is not just reports in the press. Official safety campaigns use the phrase 'speed kills' and present a simplistic picture. Not that anyone should for example drive fast in residential areas, of course. (I know 'respectable' middle class people who drive at appalling speeds in residential areas. I once got a lift from a colleague, and winced at his dangerous driving. Over confidence is the problem in my view. I might be mistaken.)
|
But you do mention an interesting phrase, namely 'speed kills', which is nonsense
Is it?
I don't think so... after all its the fact that something is moving when it hits the other object that gives it the capacity to kill and the faster it is travelling the more chance it will kill... so, in its literal sense speed does kill...
I did make the point that the problem is over-simplification of their message is the issue... But if you make a poster or do a 30 second commenrcial or a brief interview on a radio programme its difficult not to end up over-simplify things... There is no excuse for such simplification in a 30 minute TV programme, though...
I do suspect that the 1/3 figure is probably right, though you have to take out the speed limits and just look at whether the vehicles' speed was appropriate for the prevailing road conditions and the mental state of the driver... even at low speed with the latter a car can be lethal.
The problem as I see it is one of over simplification which has then given ammunition to those who feel that there should be no control on their "freedoms" when driving. The Car, the UK equivelent of the Gun in the US?
Edited by b308 on 09/08/2010 at 17:08
|
|
b308: said "I do suspect that the 1/3 figure is probably right,"
Unfortunately you are mistaken (unless things have changed dramatically in the last year) and I recommend that you do some research. Go back to the official figures, not ones from oganisations with an agenda such as Brake and Safe Speed.As I understand it, the police record information about car 'accidents' involving deaths and serius injuries, including the known causes.
This highlights a problem, that we are so inundated with simplistic 'Speed Kills' propaganda from quangos, that most people probably do think that speeding is a primary cause of 1/3 of accidents.That means that other equally if not more important causes of accidents might not be addressed.
b308 said: "so, in its literal sense speed does kill..."
In a literal sense it does not. We are all moving at 67,062 miles per hour through space, due to the Earth orbiting the sun. When was the last time someone was admitted to hospital due to injuries caused by the speed at which we orbit the sun? What kills is an impact, with a large speed differential, leading to a sudden deceleration (or acceleration). You can even die from an impact at 20mph if your head hits the car windscreen, as the brain is vulnerable.
|
b308: said "I do suspect that the 1/3 figure is probably right,"
Unfortunately you are mistaken
As I haven't seen any stats to show any different Can I have a link to these stats you are quoting, then I can then see where you are coming from!
b308 said: "so, in its literal sense speed does kill..."
In a literal sense it does not.
Yes it does.? on a road you need movement from somewher to be killed, the higher the speed the more likely it becomes, so speed does kill
Edited by b308 on 10/08/2010 at 17:37
|
As I haven't seen any stats to show any different Can I have a link to these stats you are quoting, then I can then see where you are coming from!
I hoped you could find them yourself and hence be happy with the source. However, I saw official online statistics a few years ago, and they were from government sources. I cannot find the same ones. I'm not being devious, I just cannot find them. However this link has mention of the statistics from 1998: www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-speed-cameras....m. The paper referred to could well have been the source I saw. Regarding the above site, I do not know if they have an agenda or not. One could invoke conspiracy theories as an explanation for why the statistics are no longer readily findable, but really I do not know. I'll see if I can find some from a government site.
Yes it does.? on a road you need movement from somewher to be killed, the higher the speed the more likely it becomes, so speed does kill
This could go on forever, but speed per se does not kill. Driving too fast for the conditions and hazards present risks killing someone. I think we agree on that.
|
And another link. This one is an official government paper:
www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/22775...f
Tables 4a and 4b are interesting. These list contributory factors, not necessarily primary causes. I have a suspicion that an incident involving 'speeding' would also be listed as 'driving too fast for the conditions'. Hence there is double counting, and table 4b seems to confirm that. Anyway you can see from table 4b which lists the 10 most frequently reported factors that in 9-12% of recorded accidents driving too fast for the conditions was a contributory factor. Note that this is for accidents where a police officer attended.
|
|
|
|
|
Damned edit! I am really starting to dislike this "new" forum set-up!!
Sorry, L, I tried to edit and came out as aload of rubbish and then when I tried again it wouldn't let me do anthing...
I think we're going off subject... I think you'd accept that any increase of speed makes it more likely for a fatal accident to take place... but as I've said before, whilst it is the presence of speed (or movement if you wish) that can lead to an accident, its inappropriate speed that is the issue...
Brake and others have simplified things too much in "Speed Kills", my issue is that this sort of programme has the opportunity to show how speed can kill, showing how inappropriate speed can lead to fatal crashes... trouble is they don't...
I remember seeing a programme on crash investigation by the NZ Police that showed exactly that point... trouble was it was rather "dry" viewing so unlikely to make it into a TV schedule where viewer figures is king.
|
Damned edit! I am really starting to dislike this "new" forum set-up!!
Me too. And the login timeout is awful.
I think we're going off subject... I think you'd accept that any increase of speed makes it more likely for a fatal accident to take place... but as I've said before, whilst it is the presence of speed (or movement if you wish) that can lead to an accident, its inappropriate speed that is the issue...
Yes, of course, inappropriate speed is the issue. Saying that an increase in speed makes it more likely for a fatal accident to take place is in a literal sense true, since any crash will be worse, but the logical conclusion is that cars are only safe when stationary. There are many ways to reduce death rates. Safer roads, safer cars, driver education, catching dangerous drivers and so on.
Brake and others have simplified things too much in "Speed Kills", my issue is that this sort of programme has the opportunity to show how speed can kill, showing how inappropriate speed can lead to fatal crashes... trouble is they don't...
Well I think they should show that dangerous driving kills, including going too fast, but also using a mobile phone, not paying attention, ignoring road signs and so on. On the numerous occasions where I have almost driven into the side of a car or vica versa, it has always been due to someone else not paying attention, and nothing to do with speed. (I did once reverse into the side of a car while in a supermarket car park. I had just visited my elderly mother who was seriously ill. Emotional trauma is probably a significant cause of accidents, as it means we are distracted.)
The problem with speed camera partnerships is that they have a vested interest in speed cameras. Were they safety partnerships, with no financial interest in any particular form of road safety device, then I might trust them. As you say, I digress.
|
|
Isn't the inflexible nature of speed limits also an issue?
20 mph zones during school holidays or out of hours, 50 mph average speed zones on motorways when you can't see another car for miles and the road workers have gone home. Reducing speed limits to try and control those that always massively ignore them.
Appreciate that there has to be a speed restriction and what I am implying is not practical or enforceable yet (so what's new there then!) but that IMHO is the issue.
Poor or unfair law will always be treated badly.
FTF
|
Isn't the inflexible nature of speed limits also an issue?
20 mph zones during school holidays or out of hours, 50 mph average speed zones on motorways when you can't see another car for miles and the road workers have gone home. Reducing speed limits to try and control those that always massively ignore them.
Appreciate that there has to be a speed restriction and what I am implying is not practical or enforceable yet (so what's new there then!) but that IMHO is the issue.
Poor or unfair law will always be treated badly.
FTF
I agree with everything you say. Trouble is there are some supposedly intelligent and quick witted people out there who wilfully refuse to grasp this.
If a 60mph road has the odd clown drive too fast and have some accidents, let's say they travel at 80mph...why should the rest of us have to endure a subsequent 50mph or 40mph limit, so that the authorities can say they've 'done something'...when the reality is there was never a problem at 60mph..it was 80mph that the difficulty arose.. and the clown will still drive down there at 80mph, ignoring the now lower limit that the rest of us have to now comply with or drive like a frightened rabbit 'grabbing a bit more'.
|
|
Yes but if we raise speed limits to say 80 on the motorway, most will drive at 90 or 100 plus. You will never get a happy solution and appease everyone. You either have to punish more and frequently or as I said earlier use technology to govern vehicles to obey limits.
|
Yes but if we raise speed limits to say 80 on the motorway, most will drive at 90 or 100 plus. You will never get a happy solution and appease everyone. You either have to punish more and frequently or as I said earlier use technology to govern vehicles to obey limits.
How about having a major crack down on poor driving, instead of concentrating on speed alone? That way the 50mph accident candidate, driving with bald tyres on a soaking wet road with no headlights on gets done and rightly so....and the 80mph driver on a dry road, clear day, no other issues, does not.
|
|
Thank you westpig
A
for instance
the motorway approaching Glasgow from stranraer
50 mph, for miles & miles & miles & miles ......mostly downhill too
not really applicable at 05:00 on a dry Sunday summer morning though......is it?
But I would have got nicked just the same for exceeding a limit appropriate for a 09:00 Monday winters morning rushour
|
|
.... and (in response to a poster higher up this thread) I wasn't suggesting that speed limits are raised. Clearly the speed at which people 'go through the hedge' islikely to be too fast, but what is happening is that the previously safe limit is reduced beacuse of the people that drive badly. Other limits are set to the worst common factor which occurs for a few hours a day, which means that for the rest of the time the limit is inappropraite.
Consequently the sensible, resonable minded majority are penalised.
FTF
|
but what is happening is that the previously safe limit is reduced beacuse of the people that drive badly.
I have a suspicion that if there are some fatal accidents on a particular road, the causes of which do not include speeding, they will reduce the speed limit anyway, so as 'to make the road safer'. Then when people speed, cameras are installed, they fund speed camera partnership jobs, employment goes up, the roads become 'safer' (according to press releases) and everyone is happy. Kinda.
|
Then when people speed, cameras are installed, they fund speed camera partnership jobs, employment goes up, the roads become 'safer' (according to press releases) and everyone is happy.
Ah, but they end up not being happy, because then you get that situation where residents complain about traffic speeding through their village/area/whatever; so some kind of speed camera is introduced, and it turns out that the main offenders are the local residents themselves.
Which comes back to that "middle-class speeding" thread a few days ago
|
|
You can still have a blow out on a dry, clear road or a vehicle can pull out without warning. Or the uninsured or licenceless idiots who can roam around seemingly untouchable, at any speed.There is no easy solution. I agree we need to crack down on habitual poor drivers and speed issues equally. But you will never get everyone to drive to your standards, so therefore we all have to pay in some way. Whether we address standards of driving or speed limits it has to work hand in hand. As I said, with more police activity on the roads and the use of technology, we can have a compromise.
I'm sure a computer could govern speed limits according to traffic conditions which would appease those on an open road or those in slow moving holiday traffic or in roadworks. Or even the time of day. It's not hard.
|
|
Strangly enough in about 500,000 miles I have never had a blowout, despite running on mid range tyres ie Honkook. Sorry 30 years at 20k plus per year say 600,000 miles
Driver neglect generally to blame either in not monitering tyre pressures or driving over debris?
cheers
M
|
|
... and using blowouts or mistakes or bad driving as resons for reducing speed limits is, as I have said above, setting the limit for the worst common factor or for very unlikely events and amounts to bad law which is why so many object and, where appropriate ignore it.
FTF
|
|
|
|
|
|
