On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:56:19 -0600, Aardwolf <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>> It's research.
>Not meeting the standard for technical purposes.
Diddums. Don't like the answer so discount it rather than try to understand it? You sound like a
helmet compulsionist.
>> >> But when average speeds reduce, crashes and fatalities reduce.
>> >To what level?
>> Irrelevant.
>Not necessarily, if average speeds are skewed by increasing one tail of the distribution.
But speed limits generally have a bunching effect on speed distributions, so that's not a problem.
>In which case it is quite possible that the likelihood of collision will increase with lower speeds
>sufficiently to offset the greater likelihood of serious injury in collisions at higher speeds.
It could happen, it just doesn't in practice. Letting everybody drive as fast as they want *could*
in theory lead to them developing much better judgement about speed. What actually happens is they
make the same **** judgements, but much closer to the limits.
>> You can argue for faster limits if you want, just don't try to pretend that it's for safety
>> reasons.
>I have not been. But sometimes it is.
And usually it isn't.
>In fact that would virtually always be the case in the U.S., in any environment that it would be
>even remotely likely that those in power would let limits be raised.
Argument by assertion.
>> Faster limits are always about the desire to go faster, in the knowledge that the one who dies
>> will probably not be you.
>True. And especially if it (a.) actually decreases _everyone's_ likelihood of being involved in a
>collision, or (b.) does not significantly change that possibility, you're right.
But it does increase risk, and the rate of increase also increases with speed. Probability of
fatality given crash rises with the fourth power of speed. Small changes in average speed have
significant effects on overall risk. So that's a very bif "if" you have there.
>Zero tolerance does not allow for individual responsibility, and presumes guilt.
No it doesn't presume guilt, and it allows for individuals to take responsibility for their own
actions: if they choose to break the law, they get prosecuted. They have a choice.
>I do not see that as a constructive way to run a democratic nation unless the activity being
>suppressed is always, by definition, harmful.
Like motoring, for example, with over 40,000 dead every year.
>Besides, even cameras don't catch everyone, nor do they completely eliminate speed variance.
They reduce speed variance and, crucially, they are automated so are much less open to abuse.
>Speeds have gone up over time, very slightly, in the United States, and fatality rates have been on
>a steady downward trend since prior to 1970.
And so they should be. Compare the cars of the 70s with the cars of today, with airbags, crumple
zones and all sorts of other things.
>> The underlying cause in general is small risks taken very large numbers of times. I stand
>> by that.
>Yes, if the risks are large enough or likely enough to cause a collision.
No, they don't need to be, that's the whole point. Not looking twice at a junction - very small
risk. Mostly you see evrything first time. You could get away with it for ever, or you could die the
second time.
>Risk is dependent on situation and ever changing. There is always a point that, if something
>happens, there wouldn't be time to do anything about it, except for not being there at the time.
Yep. And the faster you go, the wider that margin of danger gets.
>> >The likelihood of being involved in a major collision is very low.
>> But very much higher than in many other countries.
>A few other countries, and I suspect not as much higher as some might suggest.
You are about in the middle of industrialised nations with fatalities per car, the worst in
fatalities per head of population. Not sure about per billion passenger km. UK is among the
safest for that.
>> Company pays X to build a car or X-25% to build a truck without the car-standard safety feaures
>> and using old engines made on old tooling. That's how it got started.
>But that wasn't a tariff barrier, it applies equally to domestic companies. And they started it.
The tariff barrier was the light truck levy.
>> >It would however help if the latter hadn't been squeezed out by making them too expensive to
>> >develop as reasonably priced mass market vehicles,
>> It's not so expensive that Toyota, Honda, Mercedes and so on can't afford it. That's just an
>> excuse.
>No, it's maximizing your profit while minimizing your outlay. It should be expected.
Of course, and if your Government is too craven even to publish comparitive injury and secondary
safety stats you end up with dangerous cars. Since the EuroNCAP scheme started car makers in Europe
have actually started to compete on safety. That is a mixed blessing, of course, as the drivers in
"safe" cars then proceed to drive less carefully...
>> >As to trucks, foreign manufacturers are more than happy to sell theirs here, too, and even make
>> >newer bigger ones specifically for this market.
>> I don't know if the tariff barrier has been dropped now.
>It doesn't have to be, they just have to sell enough to make it worth their while.
US manufacturing costs are so high that even tariff barriers make no difference? Amazing.
>> So don't let them. Make the camera companies not-for-profit.
>If that were actually the case, leeway (for passing, etc.) was given, and other strictly binding
>rules of use were set, I might not have a problem with it.
Leeway for passing. Hmmm. Given that cameras here are set for 10% + 3mph, that's plenty of leeway.
If you can't pass safely within that margin, why are you passing in the first place?
>> >people are dying anyway, so picking one number doesn't make it any more righteous than the next,
>> >just because it happens to be lower. Otherwise you're heading for zero again and that is not
>> >reconcilable with vehicle travel.
>> Great idea - give up entirely. Maybe that's why our fatality rate is so much lower than yours,
>> because we haven't.
>That is not what I said. Just that _if_ the rate can be reduced by letting people go as fast as the
>reasonable majority of them want to, it's rather pointless to hold them back instead, just
>someone's power trip because they've decided _they_ hold the Right Number. (Of mph or fatalities,
>your choice.) Unless they set it at zero, which no one can dispute is the safest it could be.
But that's not what's being suggested. What's being suggested is that drivers are allowed to go
faster, which increases risk. The rate won't be reduced by letting them go as fast as they want to
go, partly because according to you most of thema lreadydo that anyway, and partly because of the
laws of physics.
>> You can never make the risk equivalent at different speeds, because of the kinetic energy of the
>> vehicle, dynamics at speed and so on. To take an extreme example: a blowout at 10mph will be
>> undramatic. One at 100mph could be fatal under some circumstances.
>Sure you can. On roads designed for higher speeds, with wide shoulders and good sightlines, not
>considering risks so small they're pointless to worry about--such as being hit by an ice slug from
>an airliner toilet. And absent heavy traffic.
********. In the UK, with some of the safest roads in the Western world, you have a 1 in 200 chance
of dying in a road crash. That's a pretty serious risk. The risk is always less at lower speeds.
>A 100mph blowout should not be that dangerous provided you know how to handle it
Fantasy land.
>> The very very few are actually members of the very many with whom the law of averages has
>> caught up.
>I fail to see how that can be deduced from any data. Just that a certain, relatively constant
>percentage of drivers cause such casualties.
Nope. The proportion in the US is substantially higher than the proportion here, for example.
Everyone takes risks when driving. Small risks. But they take an enormous number of them. And every
now and then the law of averages catches up.
>> We have more children walking on the street, and a smaller proportion of them die under the
>> wheels of cars.
>I would hope they'd be walking on the sidewalk. It seems like a better proposition all around.
Deferring to the source of danger? 30 years ago they could play in the street. Now the children are
blamed if they behave like children. The main difference is that 30 years ago peopel drove as if
there might be children around, now they assume that becauyse there wasn't a child yesterday there
won't be one today.
>> Germany's record is better than ours and the Dutch better still, not least because they have a
>> presumption of fault if you hit a cyclist or a pedestrian.
>Ah, good old presumed guilt. That's certainly fair. If anyone is inept enough to run into me they
>can damn well take all of the responsibility for it. And pay for the damage to my vehicle as well
>as their own medical costs.
Reverse burden of proof, not presumption of guilt. And it has reportedly had a tremendous effect in
moderating driver behaviour around vulnerable road users.
And now I'm going to work out what bike to buy my seven-year-old for his birthday tomorrow.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
