Mr. Sausages Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Speed kills. Oh, hang on a sec, no it doesnt. No, I suppose technically it's the wall/car you hit that kills you. Falling off a cliff doesn't kill you, it's the rocks below that do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofus Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 having a lack of space to react to altered conditions such as weather, road surface and the actions of other road users is more crucial when things go wrong than the speed at which you were travelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Slow down and there shouldn't be a "lack of space" in front of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Windy corner IS far safer, you can scream round it now without crashing or ending up in the gravel pit. Is the gravel trap still actually there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Windy corner IS far safer, you can scream round it now without crashing or ending up in the gravel pit. Is the gravel trap still actually there? I believe not, as it was filled up with soil when windy corner was altered a while ago.. ..presumably, that has hardened by now, and what was formerly a gravel trap now is more like a raised surface - still not sure why that was done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Well, in 4% of accidents it COULD have a bearing... A more balanced statistic might be that "Exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for conditions were reported as a contributory factor in 15 per cent of all accidents. However, the factor became more significant with the severity of the accident; it was reported as contributory factor in 26 per cent of fatal accidents and these accidents accounted for 28 per cent of all fatalities" which is a direct quote from the summary of the report. I think in fatal accidents exceeding the speed limit was stated as a factor in 17%. This would suggest that speed is an issue in respect of serious accidents although agreed not in respect of Mrs A reversing into Mrs B at the school drop off point as I saw this morning which if reported would be in accident reports. The anti speed lobby might also try to argue that of the additional 35% of accidents which were reported as being through loss of control, speed may have been the cause of the loss of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofus Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Slow down and there shouldn't be a "lack of space" in front of you. the available space in front of you should be tailored to the speed at which you are travelling and in relation to all ather factors that will affect your ability to slow safely without loosing control of your vehicle. thats why thinking distances, braking distances and overall stopping distances are quoted in the highway code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 I'm glad you agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emesde Posted October 14, 2006 Share Posted October 14, 2006 This Press Briefing pinched from another site might be of interest :- " IoM Advanced Motorists Meeting 19th Oct Date Submitted: 13/10/2006 16:02:02 Source: Alan Hisscott The Isle of Man Advanced Motorists have arranged their next open meeting to be held in the Kennedy’s Lounge Function Suite at Onchan Park on Thursday 19th October at 7.30pm. The speaker will be Duncan Livingstone, the Island’s Police Driver Training Instructor, and is open to everyone with an interest in motoring and motorcycling. The Kennedy Suite is situated above the café in Onchan Park and there is ample parking nearby. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stookie Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 A more balanced statistic might be that "Exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for conditions were reported as a contributory factor in 15 per cent of all accidents. However, the factor became more significant with the severity of the accident; it was reported as contributory factor in 26 per cent of fatal accidents and these accidents accounted for 28 per cent of all fatalities" which is a direct quote from the summary of the report. I think in fatal accidents exceeding the speed limit was stated as a factor in 17%. This would suggest that speed is an issue in respect of serious accidents although agreed not in respect of Mrs A reversing into Mrs B at the school drop off point as I saw this morning which if reported would be in accident reports. The anti speed lobby might also try to argue that of the additional 35% of accidents which were reported as being through loss of control, speed may have been the cause of the loss of control. Absolute tosh! A more balanced statistic would be that "NOT exceeding the speed limit, blah blah... was a contributory factor in 85% of all accidents"..."it was NOT reported as a contributory factor in 74% of fatal accidents"..."the anti speed lobby WILL completely fail to argue that 65% of accidents where speed may NOT have been the cause of the loss of control" Don't you just love statistics, but I prefer mine as they demonstrate how easily the public is manipulated by having a particular bias and what amounts to a total lack of initiative to deal with reasons for the overwhelming majority of serious accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Absolute tosh! A more balanced statistic would be that "NOT exceeding the speed limit, blah blah... was a contributory factor in 85% of all accidents"..."it was NOT reported as a contributory factor in 74% of fatal accidents"..."the anti speed lobby WILL completely fail to argue that 65% of accidents where speed may NOT have been the cause of the loss of control" Don't you just love statistics, but I prefer mine as they demonstrate how easily the public is manipulated by having a particular bias and what amounts to a total lack of initiative to deal with reasons for the overwhelming majority of serious accidents. No that is not a more balanced argument it is an argument. The report was on what causes accidents not what does not cause accidents therefore reports etc are going to quote the statistics from that angle. Just as the news reports if an event occurs not if an event does not occur. From memory much of the reports at the time after reporting the numbers did state that this figure was less than thought. They then usually had a debate with the anti limit arguing that the numbers being falt over a long period showed limits, speed cameras did not work. The pro lobby arguing they did as if they did not numbers would have increased in relationship to the increase in road use over the period and they had not. You pay your money and take your choice. It is also a statistic that raises its head in the argument is about cutting serious road accidents and deaths as unlike other reasons, loosing control, being distracted it is potentially easy to legislate for, How do yoou legislate against not paying attention and then check. The argument is that speed on the other hand is easy to check and monitor and if it was done in a way that everybody obeyed the limits etc then at a stroke 26% of road deaths would be wiped out each year. I appreciate that it is a totally simplistic argument and I may not necessarilly agree with it but they are reason why they report the number caused by rather than not caused by. Finally my initial figures were in a response to a figure being quoted for all accidents. In regard to what was being discussed I thought that the serious accident and deaths rates was more relevant. I therefore stated the figures the same way around as the initial contributor. I presume you also disagree with him when he states that "in 4% it maybe has a bearing". Presumably you would have prefereed that to have been written "in 96% it may not have a bearing" In all the above you may note that I argue neither pro or anti. I just would prefer that whatever side of the fence you sit on people quote as far as possible relevant unbised staistics without putting a spin on them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavsta Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 If its going to be as wide as it looks itll be some corner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted October 20, 2006 Author Share Posted October 20, 2006 If its going to be as wide as it looks itll be some corner! Nah that's where the Brandish Taco Bell drivethru is going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Having had my first trip through the roadworks this week, I am gobsmacked at the route taken by the new 'slight bend', gone is the corner which never gave me a moment's concern, you will be able to cruise around there about 80mph when it's finished. I think the worst bit of road in that area still exists and don't know if the roadworks will reach that far, it is the kink where the police parking spot is between the high hedges where the small group of trees are, as the surface there kicks you about in all directions trying to dump you in the hedge and you hope you don't meet a wagon in the narrows. Time will tell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stookie Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 No that is not a more balanced argument it is an argument. The report was on what causes accidents not what does not cause accidents therefore reports etc are going to quote the statistics from that angle. Just as the news reports if an event occurs not if an event does not occur. not picking any argument with you on this either, but a report on the causes of severe accidents that concentrates on the minority isn't particularly balanced. One that would be far more difficult to write that looked at the majority of serious accidents would be better balanced - if the problem is drivers not paying attention then re-test every 5 years or so to encourage better discipline and/or take the least able off the road. Do they have statistics on how many accidents are caused by drivers with poor eyesight and/or mobility in their limbs? Probably not as eyecatching as speeding which is always going to be more topical and would it be a bit obvious to tell road users that if they can't see properly they shouldn't be driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.