Cars & Transportation Slow Down, Speed Kills

[Simple Jack]

But it can reduce the risk. Thats the objective here, not to absolutely define safe and dangerous. As you have already pointed out, you can still be dangerous driving within the speed limit.

No one is disputing that, but would you conceed that you can still be safe whilst exceeding the speed limit?

 

[Magoos Man]

Magoos Man, You've replied to my post a few times but I'll just answer once here.

This is the entire point I am trying to make. Speed is a factor in any accident, but a far MORE critical factor is dangerous driving.

If you look at the first post I made, I pointed out that on the Autobahns (which have a lower crash/death rate per vehicle/km than Australian highways) although they have no speed limits, things like tailgating and being in the correct lane are heavily enforced.

And all you need to do is look at a lot of the responses here and you will see that people have been so heavily indoctrinated with the 'if you are over the limit, you are instantly dangerous' message that many have inferred 'if you are under the limit, you are instantly safe'.

It's dangerous for people to have this mindset.

Also you may have misunderstood a post I previously made where I stated that the speed limit is the same for a 40t truck, and a carbon brake equipped sports car, and you inferred that I was suggesting that if you have such a car you can exceed the limit.

I didn't mean that, I was just using that as an example to clearly show that people trying to defend the 'if you are over the limit, you are instantly dangerous' message by pointing out one situation where two vehicles that are under the speed limit can have extrememly different levels of 'safety' and by extension, that a particular type of vehicle could be safer than another even if it was well over the limit.

Do you agree that 'over the limit = instantly dangerous' is an incorrect statement?

Whilst i believe i understand what youre driving at (hilarious i know!), Nope- I won't agree with that statement. Mind you, I also don't agree that under limit always = safe driving either.

But it does reduce the risk to an acceptable level of risk/reward ratio. I spoke about that earlier

The reasons why you believe it's safe to speed in certain circumstances (quiet freeway, late model car with abs, competent driver, sunny day and so on) are almost all internal factors, with little regard for the external ones. You're basically saying " the conditions are suitable, I have a safe car, and I'm a great driver, therefore the risks of an accident don't go up if I speed". And it's incorrect, as that mentality fails to take into account the environment around you, and just how unpredictable that can be. If everything could be guaranteed to stay just the same, then MAYBE ( just a maybe) i could be convinced. But you cant guarantee that.
The faster you go, should something unpredictable occur, the chances of a fatality go up. Not just for you, but for others in crappier cars, with less competency behind the wheel.

That's why it's unsafe to speed. Always.

 

[Magoos Man]

No one is disputing that, but would you conceed that you can still be safe whilst exceeding the speed limit?

Nope- just explained why above.

 

[Simple Jack]

Nope- just explained why above.

Consider this situation, a year or two ago Kings way was changed from 70 to 60 . Does that mean that at 11:59PM Tuesday 70 was a safe speed but then at 12:01AM Wednesday it makes you a menace to society?
No? Sound stupid? Of course it does. Because it is.

All I need to do is go back to the Kings Way example. Are you telling me that someone travelling at a 'safe' 70 at 11:59:59 suddenly becomes unsafe one second later because of the limit change?

No rational person could believe that.

So to your mind, the above situation (after midnight) isn't both exceeding the speed limit and safe?

 

[Magoos Man]

So to your mind, the above situation (after midnight) isn't both exceeding the speed limit and safe?

Nope, because prior to the moment vicroads changed the limit at midnight, it was deemed that 70 was in fact a dangerous speed to travel at. Why did they change it?? Don't know- but I'm guessing the environment/ traffic density had changed since they had originally posted the 70 limit.

In that circumstance, you traveling at 69kms an hour at 11:59pm the day before, you were both legal AND dangerous. Vicroads obviously saw this was a problem- so they fixed it.

 

[shurg123]

I can see what both sides are getting at here. All safety is relative. Let's take the example of 'your risk of having a crash doubles with every 5km/h increment in a 60 km/h zone':

Let's say 10,000 cars travel along a major arterial on a given day and out of these 10,000 cars, 3 meet with accidents. Half of the traffic is travelling at an average of 60 km/h, the other half are travelling at 65 km/h. Let's say 1 car meets with an accident while going at 60 km/h, 2 cars meet with an accident going at 65 km/h.

From this empirical data, the researchers then determine that the chance of an accident at 60 km/h is 0.01%, whereas the chance of an accident at 65 km/h is 0.02% (technically double the risk). However, they ignore the fact that the chance of you NOT having an accident at 60 km/h is 99.99%. At 65 km/h, this is reduced to a *whopping* 99.98%. At 70 km/h, 99.96%, at 75km/g 99.92% and so on.

This is just proof that statistics can be twisted to support false propaganda. Telling someone that going 5km/h over the limit doubles the risk of a crash is far better at brainwashing them to believe that speeding is *inherently* dangerous, as opposed to telling them the far more useful fact that going 5km/h over a 60 km/h limit will decrease their chance of NOT crashing from 99.99% to 99.98%. Like Magoos Man said, it's a risk/reward scenario and for a lot of people a risk of NOT crashing of 99.96% is no different to a risk of NOT crashing of 99.99%.

 

[Caesar]

Good to see you can correctly recite the doctrine.

Speeding is irrelevant. DANGEROUS DRIVING is the problem.

The Autobahns in Germany have no speed limits (because arbitary limits are a shit lazy way of trying to acheive the 'safety' outcome). However, things like tailgating and driving slow in the fast lane/fast in the slow lane are heavily policed.

Because they are targetting the cause, not the symptom.

That Ferrari driver was a hazard on the road because he was driving dangerously, running a red and going 180km/h in the city is terrible, and shockingly bad for the family of the innocent victims.

Doing 65 in a 60 zone when the conditions allow does not endager safety. Doing 59 in a 60 zone when conditions do not allow it, while technically 'legal', DOES endager safety.

Consider this situation, a year or two ago Kings way was changed from 70 to 60 . Does that mean that at 11:59PM Tuesday 70 was a safe speed but then at 12:01AM Wednesday it makes you a menace to society?
No? Sound stupid? Of course it does. Because it is.

Say it with me kids "Speeding is irrelevant, dangerous driving is THE problem."


Btw, excessive speeding IS dangerous driving, even minor speeding (or obeying the speed limit) CAN be dangerous. Only when it becomes dangerous does it become relevant.

This post misses the point. A speed limit doesn't mean that any speed in excess of that is automatically unsafe, and you will not find a single traffic authority or police officer who would claim it does.

Speed limits would be unnecessary if people were capable of driving within the limits of their ability without prompting. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Every study shows that the vast majority of drivers overestimate their ability.

Speeding and dangerous driving more often than not go hand-in-hand. Additionally, speed exacerbates the result if an accident occurs due to dangerous driving. Therefore, speed limits are a useful way of ensuring drivers keep to a speed that is comfortably within the scope of the average driver's driving ability in normal conditions.

It's just a useful objective measure to help ensure that as many drivers as possible are driving within the limits of their ability.

 

[Simple Jack]

This post misses the point. A speed limit doesn't mean that any speed in excess of that is automatically unsafe, and you will not find a single traffic authority or police officer who would claim it does.

Speed limits would be unnecessary if people were capable of driving within the limits of their ability without prompting. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Every study shows that the vast majority of drivers overestimate their ability.

Speeding and dangerous driving more often than not go hand-in-hand. Additionally, speed exacerbates the result if an accident occurs due to dangerous driving. Therefore, speed limits are a useful way of ensuring drivers keep to a speed that is comfortably within the scope of the average driver's driving ability in normal conditions.

It's just a useful objective measure to help ensure that as many drivers as possible are driving within the limits of their ability.

I agree with most of your post, but the bolded is specifically my point.

No you will not find a single traffic authority or police officer who does, however, you will find a large proportion of Joe public who do make that claim, or at the very least make that assumption.

It's dangerous, it's been drummed into them by TAC ads and it's wrong.

There are many circumstances where the speed limit would be an unsafe speed. Not to mention that I can't count the amount of times (especially outside built up areas with the default 100) where I've seen drivers sit bang on 100 on the straight part of the road, and then really push the limit flying around (often blind) corners which naturally don't safely support such a speed.

The emphasis (from young driver education up) should be on driving safely, not blindly following a fixed limit which is only appropriate some of the time.

Edit: By the way, on this bit:
"Every study shows that the vast majority of drivers overestimate their ability."

100% correct, and one of the things done in one of the Scandanavian countries, is that before kids can get their licence, they have to do a professionally run driving course which encompasses time on a skid pan/obstacle course etc where they are all brought right back to reality in terms of their driving abilites.

Better driver training would be targeting the cause, strictly enforcing speed limits only is targeting the symptom.

 

[BORK]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...kmh-speed-limits/story-e6frea8c-1226375618517

Would be an interesting political shitfight to watch play out. Pity it takes a retired politician to air this kind of view.

Anyone who has drive the freeway stretch from Adelaide to Tailem Bend would struggle to disagree.