Safe Speed Forums

I was reading a news article today and to cut a long story short they made a statement that 98% of all RTA's are caused because of bad judgement by motorists. I didn't think much of it at the time but then I thought, hang on a minute…

Assuming that's the truth, if there's, let's say, 100,000 RTA's per year then that equates to 2,000 which are caused by what exactly?

Are the steering wheels coming off in our hands or something? Even if there's only 10,000 RTA's a year in total that's still 200 'acts of God' for which the motorists has no chance. If this 2% is correct for the world over it's kinda worrying isn't it?

Does anyone know what's causing these? It's not like we've got earthquakes.

I can't find the exact story on-line but I read it in the Sutton Coldfield news, about their fire servicemen taking a mashed-up Rover car on tour to show what happens when you drive at 67mph in a 30 limit. All four youths were killed when it crashed into a tree

The madness of youth eh?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Is this
the article?
According to Nigel Bayliss, "It is well documented that 98% of collisions are the result of human error, and that young road users are most at risk of being killed or seriously injured on our roads."

OK, 98% of Road Traffic Collisions are errors of judgement, as in, unintended.

What if the other 2% have intent as a feature? (Not necessarily 'predatory driving', mind you?)

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Yes Rush - You're brilliant! It doesn't show the picture of the car on the back of a trailer but maybe that's a good thing.

Cheers bud

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Well, no actually.

It doesnt show what happens "When you do 67 in a 30"

It shows what happens if you drive into a tree!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Agreed. I wasn't agreeing with the reporter who siad that, just quoting it, although I have to say I wouldn't do 67 mph on even the best most deserted 30 mph road I know, but maybe there's one I haven't seen yet

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

You can always try this one, where 70 mph was once legal:



On the general point of the thread, aren't the other 2% due to unexpected mechanical failure, blowouts etc? And if so, I would have expected the figure to be in the 5-10% range, tbh.

Also it is stated that "98% of all RTA's are caused because of bad judgement by motorists". What about those caused by the bad judgment of pedestrians and cyclists? Wouldn't it be better phrased as "bad judgment by road users"?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

The 2% will include mechanical failure such as tyre blowouts, suspension failure etc. as well as collisions with animals and medical problems.

Cheers both.

I did consider that but a tyre blow-out on a modern car, with the low profile this-an-that etc., doesn't cause the car to veer off or much.

In fact, a friend once had one and he hardly noticed. He said he could hear a funny noise and pulled over. (Nissan 300ZX) We think it's because of the power steering and modern tyre technology. So I'm not convinced tyre blow-out is a big contributer to RTA's.

As for suspension? Again, on modern cars is this really happening so often I wonder?

I can imagine heart attack being significant, but 200 or 2000 in a car each year?

I know I could be wrong on all counts, I was just curious.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

You always refer to this picture, which paints a completely false picture to those who don't know the area. The 30mph limit lasts for about 300 yards doesn't it

But - why?

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

The 30 limit was imposed supposedly to protection a Pelican crossing. However there is no need for it to be anything like as long as it is, and I have seen similar installations (such as on the A50 at Uttoxeter) where a much shorter 40 limit has sufficed for the same purpose.

In the direction looking away from the camera, it extends about as far as the silver car in L2 - a distance within which you could in a reasonably powerful car accelerate to 70 mph even after paying proper regard to the crossing. In the opposite direction it extends maybe 150 yards further still, about as far as you can see in the picture, and I would say is comprehensively ignored by 99% of traffic.

So this is a 30 limit within which it is both possible and safe to do 70 mph - and once was legal as well.

The road beyond was originally 70 but was (unreasonably) reduced to 50

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I've driven in to numerous trees ... at 1MpH or less ... with the same car. I don't recommend driving into a car at any speed, but there are important differences between driving into a tree at 67 MpH, driving at 67MpH, and driving into a tree.

Given just the above it would seem that most people are ignorant or indifferent to the important differences between speed and velocity, and that's just for starters.

If the 2% of non-driver error RTCs are due to mechanical failures, cooling system failures, electrical failures, and fuel system failures are all more common than tire, wheel, suspension, and steering failures. (I am not counting mechanical failures caused by faulty road features such as potholes or loose debris.)

More importantly, even though many of these failures may be driver errors of a sort, they are not driving errors. Also, it's obvious that most mechanical failures don't automatically result in collisions. To say that 5% of mechanical failures result in collisions is probably an overestimate.

Further, if the cost of maintaining cars went down for drivers, mechanics, and shop owners, it would be a safe bet that mechanical failures and their resultant accidents would measurably drop.

However, I dare to guess that if you were to account for every mechanical failure that resulted in an RTA, you'd still wind up with less than the total 2% - maybe less than 1%. Further, I'll bet that while the majority of these are not driving errors per se, they could probably be beneficially addressed outside of driver education.

So the last 2% of Road Traffic Accidents are comprised of:
mechanical failures
intent (in other words, not an 'accident')
what else?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Medical - Heart attack etc.

Intent definitely exists as I have been on the receiving end of someone who disliked the type of car I was driving.

There's also a mechanical defect on another car. If the steering goes on a car that goes over the central reservation (it happened to my brother-in-law) and slams into you, someone else's problem becomes your problem!

Also, I have heard cases when walls, trees and large lorries have fallen over and crushed cars. There was also some guy in America who had only ever made three claims on his insurance:

Two were
1) Car hit by boat sent in land by tidal wave
2) Car hit by plane making emergency landing on road
3) I can't recall, though it was something equally dramatic like earthquake damage.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

One of my fellow taxidrivers has, over the course of but one year, experienced the following:

While on an expressway, a lorry's trailer decoupled upon striking a bridge it was too small to squeeze under/through. The trailer's rear swung into the adjacent lane to strike his taxi. The insurance company deemed that it would be nearly impossible for any driver to determine that the trailer would change direction upon impact, or which direction, or how much so, etc. , thus 0% fault. (He did make a good enough guess that he was able to drive the taxi back to HQ.)

An air conditioning unit fell from a flat three stories above and landed on his car. Since he was in 'Drive' and not 'Park', the AC unit missed the passenger section and struck the boot. (It was later discovered to be an unsuccessful assault.)

So the last 2% of Road Traffic Accidents are comprised of:
mechanical failures
intent (in other words, not an 'accident')
'impossibility' / 'vis major' / 'force majeure'
what else?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Years ago I was done for 77 in a 30. There are plenty of good fast roads that were NSL with no houses, built up areas near but for political reasons have been reduced to 30

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Actually, I can think of a few where I've done the same as you, but they are as you describe, out of town. The accident in question seems it was in a built up area. (not very clever IMO).

I hadn't considered intent, however my American friend was recently rear-ended on purpose at lights by someone in an old truck. He had to give chase to catch and report the man's details to the police. (My friend has a Ferrari F430) It turned into a fast chase.

What were you in that got on someone's tits toltec?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

It probably doesn't happen on brand new cars, but older cars are a different matter. About 15 years ago the car I had at the time had passed an MOT with no problems on a Saturday. On the Monday I was slowing to turn into a side road and there was an almighty bang as the front LH McPherson strut gave way. The collar where the bottom of the spring sits had rusted through. Two minutes before I had been doing 70 on a dual carriageway...

There had been no warning signs at all - no vibration, rattles, strange sensations through the steering etc. It could easily have ended in a crash if the timing had been slightly different.

I know what you mean but if there's one big difference I have noticed over the past 20~25 years it is that I hardly ever see bangers on the road. (cars not sausages)

Goodness knows where everyone's getting their money from but we seem to live in a far more affluent society these days and the likelihood of something like that happening today must be quite rare I would have thought.

In my day, it was commonplace to see old rusty cars held together with chewing gum.

My first car was an N-reg Marina, then an Allegro. I think I pushed them more than drove.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The rust proofing and designing out water traps makes the bodies of modern cars last much better, but I think the bits underneath are as bad as ever. Failures of suspension bushes, siezing of brake calipers etc. seem worse to me. I think the long service intervals of modern cars (my C5 is 20K miles) means that there is a very high chance of problems with brakes not being spotted before there is a problem. I notice such things but I bet a lot of people don't care as long as the car starts.