Safe Speed Forums

On the radio in Scotland at the moment are numerous "don't speed" adverts.

One such states that "at 40mph 80% of pedestrians die on impact; at 30mph only 20% die".

According to safe speed at 30mph 50% die on impact. Who is right?

I moved this topic to a more suitable forum. I hope the original poster has found it OK!

The limited data is subject to interpritation. They are both probably 'reasonable estimates'. Children are less frequently killed at a spot impact speed and '20% at 30mph' is probably a better figure for children than it is for adults.

The research is discussed in this thread:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1575

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Never mind that nonesense try this: http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm

Ah yes. It's all physics isn't it?

Apart from the fact that your barely competent link attempts to imply that car crashes are entirely a matter of physics, it does not address the original question.

So it's physics when cars crash, yet when cars don't crash it isn't physics?

The truth is that it's all psychology UNTIL road users have FAILED and then the physics takes over.

If 20% of child pedestrians are killed in 30mph impacts, yet the following figures apply to 2003:

Child pedestrians, built up areas (30 and 40mph speed limits), 2003

Killed: 61
Injured: 14,000
percentage killed: 0.41%

What does that tell you about the average impact speed?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The most important thing is that pedestrians don't get hit in the first place.

Not that difficult, Its about seperation and education. but since we are all obsessed with impact speeds no one is realy looking at it from this angle.

If we followed the anti-car bullsh*t logic to the limit we would have a 20mph national speed limit, and people would still be getting killed.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Pot..Kettle..Black.

...and other fairy stories.

Seriously though, they give all the maths to substantiate what they're saying - except that the little scenario they describe is so hopelessly improbable that all their carefully worked out maths is irrelevant.

It's like saying, "Suppose you've just won the lottery three times in a row" and then going on in great detail showing you exactly how to invest your winnings in the best possible way.

Unless, of course, you know better...

Cheers
Peter

Simple solution , lets fence of all the roads, provide subways and bridges and only let those who have passed road safety courses outside the fences, subject to safety rules of course.( gets rid of all the arguements about speed when car hits pedestrian (or vice versa) ) . removes lots of arguements for rigid speed limits .
(VERY TONGUE IN CHEEK THAT BIT)

OH NO SAY THE PURISTS - YOU CAN'T DO THAT - BUT ISN'T THAT WHAT THE ANTI CAR LOBBY ARE TRYING TO DO TO THE CAR?

in all of the arguements about car vs pedestrial vs speed of collision we do not see the latest idea- some cars are "more dangerous " than others.
Exactly which stats are they using to justify lower speed -
knowing the anti lobby they will be quoting accidents where a "worst damage" car is involved, and as a few of these are 4x4 , use this as yet another rod to beat the 4x4 with.

Simple solution , lets fence of all the roads, provide subways and bridges and only let those who have passed road safety courses outside the fences, subject to safety rules of course.( gets rid of all the arguements about speed when car hits pedestrian (or vice versa) ) . removes lots of arguements for rigid speed limits .
(VERY TONGUE IN CHEEK THAT BIT)

OH NO SAY THE PURISTS - YOU CAN'T DO THAT - BUT ISN'T THAT WHAT THE ANTI CAR LOBBY ARE TRYING TO DO TO THE CAR?

in all of the arguements about car vs pedestrial vs speed of collision we do not see the latest idea- some cars are "more dangerous " than others.
Exactly which stats are they using to justify lower speed -
knowing the anti lobby they will be quoting accidents where a "worst damage" car is involved, and as a few of these are 4x4 , use this as yet another reason to tell people what sort of car they can/cannot buy

In actual fact in terms of accidents to pedestrians, ABD have an article that shows our old friendly bus -Buses "Thirteen Times More Likely" to Knock Someone
Down than "White Van Man" - the most dangerous item on the road

These collision figures also challenge another
carefully nurtured public perception — that of
"speed kills". DfT research shows that light vans are
the most likely category of vehicles to break 30mph
speed limits, with buses being the least likely.

Item is ABD PR 432.

What a load of old crap.

Do you honestly expect me to believe for one minute that by driving at 5KM/h (that's 3.1mph) over the posted speed limit that I actually double my chances of crashing?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Who said , statistics could be made to prove anything?? Was it perchance one of our scamera suporters??

I think that phrase was probably around before speed cameras existed.

There's that much spin comes out of the scamera mobs buildings, i bet the water in the toilets spins the wrong way for this hemisphere ( and the they'd try to convince that it is going the right way, all others are wrong!)

How is it possible for that to emanate from an institution that professes to be the "Australian Academy of Science"?

Perhaps the "..Academy of Propaganda"?