Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 10:25

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 19:45 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9263
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Caught a snippet of this on BBC news today( But can't find a link-anyone????). It appears that when fuel prices soared recently, the accident rate dropped by 11%. More proof ,perhaps ,that the whooey about speed and accidents is just ---hot air :shock: . It's perhaps more about vehicle miles .Not that Cap't Pugwash and his ilk would ever own up to that being true . :D

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 22:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 20:19
Posts: 306
Location: Crewe
So we can eliminate all accidents by making fuel £100 (say) a gallon. Only joking !!

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
No no no.. You’ve got it all wrong. Drivers are conserving petrol by slowing down. That’s what’s really happening; proof positive that speed kills.

A sarcasm detector; that'd be useful :P

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 18:55 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9263
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Big Tone wrote:
No no no.. You’ve got it all wrong. Drivers are conserving petrol by slowing down. That’s what’s really happening; proof positive that speed kills.

A sarcasm detector; that'd be useful :P

Like it ,Tone.

Perhaps we need a restriction on mileage as the ONLY way to make our roads safer . :wink: Certainly more effective than using speed ( and for one poster, I mean correct speed for the conditions as opposed to numeric speed) as a method of ATTEMPTING to regulate road safety .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 15:39 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Actually there hasn't been much of a fall in total traffic levels - they fell by about 1% a year between 2007 and 2010, then stabilised in 2011 - see here.

But in a recession people do less leisure travel, and also arguably drive more "carefully".

What causes the dramatic falls in casualties is that there is a long-term trend in decreasing casualties per billion vehicle miles. So when overall mileage stabilises, or falls slightly, casualties fall a lot more.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 19:49 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9263
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
PeterE wrote:

But in a recession people do less leisure travel, and also arguably drive more "carefully".

.


YEP,but the point NOT taken by our speed freak community, is that carefully DOES NOT equate with more "slowly" .Carefully can be any of many things, that reduces fuel consumption without lowering speed by any great amount.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Accidents most frequently happen when density of traffic is at it's greatest.
During a recession we saw a drop in traffic density due to the volume of traffic being less.

The shows itself in the recent rise of accidents by 2%.
When we come out of this recession accidents WILL increase.
Every ten years or thereabouts we go into a recession and then about 5yrs later we are in a 'boom' some are better and bigger. We are currently in a bigger drop. Hence the prolonged drop in the KSI figures and also with the recent increase when we had a brief time of belief (statistically) that we were coming out of recession, so traffic volume & density consequently rose a little.

Now we are 'back in recession' traffic density and volume drops.

I have noticed a marked increase in people wanting to be as close as possible to work so that all personal costs are reduced as much as possible.

The extremely high cost in fuel is just serving to add to this effect.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:40 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
I have noticed a marked increase in people wanting to be as close as possible to work so that all personal costs are reduced as much as possible.
That was my, main, consideration with the house I bought. I knew I could cycle to work in 20 minutes or, if push comes to shove, walk it in an hour.

There's a very simple correlation between current KSI and total annual mileage which the likes of BRAKE will hijack to say scameras are working. But it's unrelated to speed. If I don't travel anywhere I stand a zero chance of being involved in a road accident. Simples..

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 19:47 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9263
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Big Tone wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
I have noticed a marked increase in people wanting to be as close as possible to work so that all personal costs are reduced as much as possible.
That was my, main, consideration with the house I bought. I knew I could cycle to work in 20 minutes or, if push comes to shove, walk it in an hour.

There's a very simple correlation between current KSI and total annual mileage which the likes of BRAKE will hijack to say scameras are working. But it's unrelated to speed. If I don't travel anywhere I stand a zero chance of being involved in a road accident. Simples..

Simples, to us,but we've no financial axe to grind. And if there's no relationship between miles driven and accident occurrence, why do the insurance industry reduce premiums for those motorists on low annual mileage . Road safety is like a cake in which all the ingredients have to be correct or the result is disaster. Perhaps even a PIE chart with all the factors in % terms. And where in this mix is speed over the limit as opposed to wrong speed for the situation . I'd suggest that brake would end up with a cake that's not really a cake, more of a mishap.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 20:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Big Tone wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
I have noticed a marked increase in people wanting to be as close as possible to work so that all personal costs are reduced as much as possible.
That was my, main, consideration with the house I bought. ...
There's a very simple correlation between current KSI and total annual mileage ...

Yes and so people who travel by motorised transport do so in limiting amounts. Thus the 'rush hour' remains the highest times that accidents occur again due to the density of traffic due to the higher volume. As accidents happen by random chance it stands to reason they are then more likely to happen when more people are closer together and more of them!

It makes sense when we want to spend the little we are prepared to spend to reduce costs as much as we can in other areas of our lives. So with travel to work being one of the regular must do 'runs', if we can make that less or non existent, then we save ! That leaves us free to buy some things we wish to still afford and so hence the 'move' people make towards work.

The higher the mileage has an advantage though although they are exposed to 'more danger' they also receive more experience and potentially more confidence, both of which makes a good driver/rider so just 'high miles' is only a small part of the equation. Age is another and so on ...

There has recently been the report that there has been a 2% increase in accidents figures.

Since most members of Safe Speed are clearly conscientious & more careful motorists, I'd love to be able to say to insurance companies, that we have had less accidents, and so ought to receive less costs to our premiums ... so how many accidents have we all had where we have had to claim ? I have created a POLL here How many accidents, (claim made) have you had to make in the last 5 years?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
[quote="SafeSpeedv2"][b]Accidents most frequently happen when density of traffic is at it's greatest.
During a recession we saw a drop in traffic density due to the volume of traffic being less.

The shows itself in the recent rise of accidents by 2%.
When we come out of this recession accidents WILL increase.[/b]
Every ten years or thereabouts we go into a recession and then about 5yrs later we are in a 'boom' some are better and bigger. We are currently in a bigger drop. Hence the prolonged drop in the KSI figures and also with the recent increase when we had a brief time of belief (statistically) that we were coming out of recession, so traffic volume & density consequently rose a little.

Now we are 'back in recession' traffic density and volume drops.

I have noticed a marked increase in people wanting to be as close as possible to work so that all personal costs are reduced as much as possible.

The extremely high cost in fuel is just serving to add to this effect.[/quote]
I'm confused; perhaps you can help.
You said:
1. High density = High frequency of collisions
2. Recession = Lower density of traffic
3. Current recession implies lower density of traffic = recent rise in collisions 2%
4. End of recession = higher density of traffic = higher incidence of collisions

If a recession implies lower density of traffic how does that result in the rise in collisions of 2%; it seems to me your logic doesn't follow, hence 3. is not logical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
[quote="SafeSpeedv2"][quote="Big Tone"][quote="SafeSpeedv2"]I have noticed a marked increase in people wanting to be as close as possible to work so that all personal costs are reduced as much as possible.[/quote]That was my, main, consideration with the house I bought. ...
There's a very simple correlation between current KSI and total annual mileage ...[/quote]
Yes and so people who travel by motorised transport do so in limiting amounts. Thus the 'rush hour' remains the highest times that accidents occur again due to the density of traffic due to the higher volume. As accidents happen by random chance it stands to reason they are then more likely to happen when more people are closer together and more of them!

It makes sense when we want to spend the little we are prepared to spend to reduce costs as much as we can in other areas of our lives. So with travel to work being one of the regular must do 'runs', if we can make that less or non existent, then we save ! That leaves us free to buy some things we wish to still afford and so hence the 'move' people make towards work.

The higher the mileage has an advantage though although they are exposed to 'more danger' they also receive more experience and potentially more confidence, both of which makes a good driver/rider so just 'high miles' is only a small part of the equation. Age is another and so on ...

There has recently been the report that there has been a 2% increase in accidents figures.

[b]Since most members of Safe Speed are clearly conscientious & more careful motorists, I'd love to be able to say to insurance companies, that we have had less accidents, and so ought to receive less costs to our premium[/b]s ... so how many accidents have we all had where we have had to claim ? I have created a POLL [url=http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26189]here[/url] How many accidents, (claim made) have you had to make in the last 5 years?[/quote]
Ho Ho Ho! Give that a try and let us know how you get on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
[quote="botach"]Caught a snippet of this on BBC news today( But can't find a link-anyone????). It appears that when fuel prices soared recently, the accident rate dropped by 11%. More proof ,perhaps ,that the whooey about speed and accidents is just ---hot air :shock: . It's perhaps more about vehicle miles .Not that Cap't Pugwash and his ilk would ever own up to that being true . :D[/quote]
How come there is a claim that there is no demonstrated causation between speed enforcement and collision numbers but there is an automatic causation assumed for fuel cost in collision reduction?

Can you see the conflict in your stance?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 18:50
Posts: 673
It is a reasonable postulation GreenShed, the number of hours worked by speed patrols has been declining, and yet the number of accidents is falling.

The density of traffic is reducing, due to fuel prices, thus the possibility of confilct decreases, and so the number of accident opportunities decreases.

The postulation appears to be, less vehicles = less accidents.

What is your theory behind the decrease since you appear to be disregarding the increase in fuel price?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9263
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
GreenShed wrote:
botach wrote:
Caught a snippet of this on BBC news today( But can't find a link-anyone????). It appears that when fuel prices soared recently, the accident rate dropped by 11%. More proof ,perhaps ,that the whooey about speed and accidents is just ---hot air :shock: . It's perhaps more about vehicle miles .Not that Cap't Pugwash and his ilk would ever own up to that being true . :D

How come there is a claim that there is no demonstrated causation between speed enforcement and collision numbers but there is an automatic causation assumed for fuel cost in collision reduction?

Can you see the conflict in your stance?


Read the last post, GS, AND ASK the same question to yourself .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 14:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
[quote="Odin"]It is a reasonable postulation GreenShed, the number of hours worked by speed patrols has been declining, and yet the number of accidents is falling.

The density of traffic is reducing, due to fuel prices, thus the possibility of confilct decreases, and so the number of accident opportunities decreases.

The postulation appears to be, less vehicles = less accidents.

What is your theory behind the decrease since you appear to be disregarding the increase in fuel price?[/quote]
As traffic density increases the number of collisions does increase; tat is a proven fact.
As traffic density increases and the number of collisions increase the proportion of those collisions involving serious and fatal casualties reduces rapidly. Why do you think that is? Here's another fact for you, the speed in resulting collisions is reduced in dense and congested traffic so less damage is inflicted in the raised number of collisions.
As traffic becomes less dense and the number and frequency of collisions reduce, the relative proportion of those collisions that involve serious and fatal injuries increases.
Are you learning anything? :thumbsup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 14:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 18:50
Posts: 673
I see, so the the governments objective of reducing accidents by 40% is flawed, because more accidents means less fatalities. Is that really your position?????

I'm very old fashioned, I prefer to have a scenario where less accidents occur.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 14:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
[quote="Odin"]I see, so the the governments objective of reducing accidents by 40% is flawed, because more accidents means less fatalities. Is that really your position?????

I'm very old fashioned, I prefer to have a scenario where less accidents occur.[/quote]
I don't really think this post is serious...................is it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 14:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 18:50
Posts: 673
No, it was posted to demonstrate how farcical your post was. Apart from the bit that I want to see less accidents that is.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 14:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9263
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Odin wrote:
I see, so the the governments objective of reducing accidents by 40% is flawed, because more accidents means less fatalities. Is that really your position?????

I'm very old fashioned, I prefer to have a scenario where less accidents occur.


Or is the idea of trying to reduce traffic on our roads flawed ,as less traffic = more series accidents(
Quote:
Here's another fact for you, the speed in resulting collisions is reduced in dense and congested traffic so less damage is inflicted in the raised number of collisions.
. Perhaps that explains the presence of vans on an almost empty M74 in good dry weather ( It's there to prevent the accidents that would occur,otherwise .So might a garden gnome ) .Ah ,the accident will be a safe one ,as it's happened when the vehicle is under the limit.

No accident is safe .As is the FACT that total adherence to limits makes things safe

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.021s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]