[OT] Reducing the amount of speeding cars on the road.

[Martin Dann]

I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/

Martin.

 

[John Kane]

On May 31, 6:54 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
> petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/
>
> Martin.

Err, "Reducing the number of speeding cars on the road" ?
Amount is not a count noun.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[vernon]

"John Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 31, 6:54 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
>> petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/
>>
>> Martin.
>
> Err, "Reducing the number of speeding cars on the road" ?
> Amount is not a count noun.
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

The OP might have meant allowing only, say, 50% of each speeding car to
continue its journey......
>

 

[[email protected]]

On 31 May, 23:54, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
> petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/
>
> Martin.

would a response that doesn't make you a laughing stock be better?

Fod

 

[spindrift]

On 1 Jun, 08:36, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 31 May, 23:54, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
> > petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).
>
> >http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/
>
> > Martin.
>
> would a response that doesn't make you a laughing stock be better?
>
> Fod

The roads are too congested and twelve hundred graves a year are
filled by the victims of speeders so I've signed.

Muppets like Small Pith and his safespeeding forum (infested with
people pretending to be police officers, probably paid for by Smith)
serve as apologists for boy racers and reckless speeding twunts. You
can see the calibre of his beer-mat scribbles research by logging on
to the forum and asking what qualifications he has- the question will
be deleted and you'll get banned.

The forum's hilarious actually, after the BBC programme on speeding,
One Fatal Day, the ponytailed geek whined petulantly that nobody asked
his advice! Then his toady acolytes turned up and started saying that
children killed on the roads deserve to die so I stopped reading.

 

[Matt B]

Martin Dann wrote:
> I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
> petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/

I'm intrigued by the title you chose for this post. Are you suggesting
that banning those you support a measure that may well improve overall
road safety could somehow reduce the number of speeding cars on the road?

Why do you think that those who see cameras as part of reason that our
roads are still so dangerous, and who believe that there are more
effective measures that should be used to actually reduce road
casualties, are to be treated with such contempt"?

Remember, the objective should be "Reducing the number of road
casualties". Other issues such as "speeding" are just a distraction
from that goal.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> The roads are too congested

Which roads? Not the ones around here. If bad transport policies in
certain areas have led to congested roads then revisit the policies.
Don't pretend that some ill-conceived, vindictive, ignorant suggestion
can somehow excuse those in power their duty to provide the
infrastructure that their electors want.

> and twelve hundred graves a year are
> filled by the victims of speeders so I've signed.

Where on earth did you get that figure from???

The published statistics for road collisions resulting in casualties
show that exceeding the speed limit was attributed to 3% of cars
involved in collisions. 12% of collisions resulting in fatalities had
speeding as one (there may have been other factors too) of the
contributory factors, these collisions resulted in 14% of the total
fatalities - that is about 397 deaths. Too many for sure, but why
misrepresent the facts?

Even 397 is probably a huge overestimate given that the way collision
data is reported is weighted to maximize the likelihood of speeding
being stated as a contributory factor (for very obvious reasons), the
precise instruction for recording it says it:
"should be reported when the driver caused, or contributed to the
accident by exceeding the posted speed limit. It should also be reported
when the actions of another road user were the immediate cause of the
accident but a speeding vehicle also contributed to the collision."

Why do you want to so perversely overstate the significance of speeding???

Those who continue to insist that "speeding" is the big issue are only
delaying the day when our roads become safe. We should pull together to
eliminate road casualties, and not distract attention from the real
causes.

--
Matt B

 

[Marc Brett]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:38:51 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Those who continue to insist that "speeding" is the big issue are only
>delaying the day when our roads become safe. We should pull together to
>eliminate road casualties, and not distract attention from the real
>causes.

Go ahead with your Mondrification wet dreams (have you actually done
anything, besides ranting here, to get any such schemes implemented?),
but it's perverse to suggest that speeding has has no big effect on road
safety. If you have any peer-reviewed articles suggesting otherwise,
I'd love to see them.

 

[John Hearns]

Matt B wrote:
>
> The published statistics for road collisions resulting in casualties
> show that exceeding the speed limit was attributed to 3% of cars
> involved in collisions. 12% of collisions resulting in fatalities had
> speeding as one (there may have been other factors too) of the
> contributory factors, these collisions resulted in 14% of the total
> fatalities - that is about 397 deaths. Too many for sure, but why
> misrepresent the facts?
>
God help me for feeding the troll.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain2005


"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 (793 deaths)."

http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/contributoryfactorstoroadacc1802

 

[Matt B]

John Hearns wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>>
>> The published statistics for road collisions resulting in casualties
>> show that exceeding the speed limit was attributed to 3% of cars
>> involved in collisions. 12% of collisions resulting in fatalities had
>> speeding as one (there may have been other factors too) of the
>> contributory factors, these collisions resulted in 14% of the total
>> fatalities - that is about 397 deaths. Too many for sure, but why
>> misrepresent the facts?
>>
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain2005
>
> "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 (793 deaths)."
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/contributoryfactorstoroadacc1802

That was the source for my numbers above. Why have you also included
the larger factor "going too fast for conditions"??? As the report
clearly states "it should be noted that if a driver was exceeding the
speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions, reporting
officers are asked to report it as the former,", so if both are involved
only "speeding" is recorded. Therefore "going too fast for conditions"
/never/ includes speeding. So, in a discussion about speeding why muddy
the waters with another factor which is only ever recorded if it is also
/within/ the speed limit.

Sheesh.

--
Matt B

 

[_]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:18:59 +0100, John Hearns wrote:

> Matt B wrote:
>>
>> The published statistics for road collisions resulting in casualties
>> show that exceeding the speed limit was attributed to 3% of cars
>> involved in collisions. 12% of collisions resulting in fatalities had
>> speeding as one (there may have been other factors too) of the
>> contributory factors, these collisions resulted in 14% of the total
>> fatalities - that is about 397 deaths. Too many for sure, but why
>> misrepresent the facts?
>>
> God help me for feeding the troll.
>

No, please don't. he doesn't want to be wrong *or* right, what he wants is
an argument.

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
>
> ... it's perverse to suggest that speeding has has no big effect on road
> safety.

Let's examine what you have just said.

Presumably then, if you think that "speeding" has an effect on road
safety, you will expect that reducing its incidence will have a positive
effect on road safety, and increasing its incidence will have a negative
effect?

Now let us see two reasons why those assumptions are absurd.

1. One guaranteed method of eliminating speeding is to set the speed
limit at a level that could not possibly be exceeded by road-going
vehicles. Would the resultant elimination of "speeding" deliver the
expected safety effect?

2. A measure guaranteed to increase the incidence of "speeding" is to
set the speed limit at a ridiculously low value. Would the resultant
increase in the incidence of "speeding", even though most traffic would
now probably be travelling much slower, deliver as predicted, more
dangerous roads?

So less speeding could correlate with less safety, and more "speeding"
could correlate with more safety.

"Speeding" is *not* a reliable measure against which road safety can be
predicted.

--
Matt B

 

[Marc Brett]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:38:52 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>>
>> ... it's perverse to suggest that speeding has has no big effect on road
>> safety.
>
>Let's examine what you have just said.
>
>"Speeding" is *not* a reliable measure against which road safety can be
>predicted.

And your peer-reviewed source is... what?

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:38:52 +0100, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>>
>>> ... it's perverse to suggest that speeding has has no big effect on road
>>> safety.
>> Let's examine what you have just said.
>>
>> "Speeding" is *not* a reliable measure against which road safety can be
>> predicted.
>
> And your peer-reviewed source is... what?

Your omission of the logic that demonstrates why your request is absurd
is noted.

Presumably you can cite a "peer-reviewed" source which shows that there
/is/ a causal relationship between "speeding" and road safety.
Remember, to prove a causal link, it will need to show that the effect
is independent of the actual speed limit. Otherwise all it shows is the
importance of the actual value of the limit, rather than whether
"speeding" occurs.

Even studies looking at the more likely contributor to road danger,
"speed", such as the landmark Solomon (1964) study, tend to show that
speeds below, as well as speeds above, the mean for the road lead to an
increase in collision probability.

--
Matt B

 

[Marc Brett]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:59:36 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Even studies looking at the more likely contributor to road danger,
>"speed", such as the landmark Solomon (1964) study, tend to show that
>speeds below, as well as speeds above, the mean for the road lead to an
>increase in collision probability.

Solomon's study was for US rural roads in the 1950s -- UK roads in the
21st century don't compare easily with those conditions. It had a small
sample size, speed estimates were collected up to 3 years after the
incident, and no account was taken for blood alcohol concentrations.
Low speed incidents included cars turning to enter or exit the highway.

At best, this study should be treated with caution.

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
>
>

Judging by its absence, I take it you have dropped your ludicrous
"speeding" claim then?

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:59:36 +0100, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Even studies looking at the more likely contributor to road danger,
>> "speed", such as the landmark Solomon (1964) study, tend to show that
>> speeds below, as well as speeds above, the mean for the road lead to an
>> increase in collision probability.
>
> Solomon's study was for US rural roads in the 1950s -- UK roads in the
> 21st century don't compare easily with those conditions. It had a small
> sample size, speed estimates were collected up to 3 years after the
> incident, and no account was taken for blood alcohol concentrations.
> Low speed incidents included cars turning to enter or exit the highway.
>
> At best, this study should be treated with caution.

Munden (1967) showed similar findings in the UK.

Harkey, Robertson, and Davis (1990) found the same so-called "U-shape"
relationship on urban roads. The sample was 532 vehicles involved in
crashes over 3 years, with alcohol and junctions excluded.

Fildes and Lee (1993) suggested that higher speed limits would result in
fewer crashes in some locations.

--
Matt B

 

[Tony Raven]

Marc Brett wrote on 01/06/2007 12:36 +0100:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:38:52 +0100, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>

Please stop trying to wrestle the troll Marc.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[mb]

On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:54:25 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:

> I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
> petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/
>
> Martin.

Don't consistent speeders get banned anyway? Doesn't the points on licence
system work?

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

 

[Ekul Namsob]

mb <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:54:25 +0000, Martin Dann wrote:
>
> > I doubt this will get any where, but it is a response to Paul smiths
> > petition. (ok this would never happen, but a response is needed).
> >
> > http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BanSpeeders/

> Don't consistent speeders get banned anyway? Doesn't the points on licence
> system work?

As I understand it, consistent speeders learn to slow down for brightly
coloured yellow boxes.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>