proof that speed doesn't kill
Paul Smith
2001 Figures direct from official government reports, which can be
downloaded via:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html
Logical proof:
=========================================================
15,704 child pedestrians injured in accidents.
107 child pedestrians killed.
65% of traffic in 30mph zones free travels at over 30mph.
Therefore
10,207 (15,704*65%) vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a
free travelling speed of more than 30mph.
Even assuming that all the child pedestrians were killed by drivers
who free travel at over 30mph, we still have 10,100 (=10,207-107) left
who were NOT killed by vehicles that have a free travelling speed of
over 30mph.
That's 99% who were NOT killed.
=========================================================
Now let's get realistic.
=========================================================
Twice as many accidents are very minor and unreported.
Five times as many incidents are near misses and unreported.
10 children were probably killed by drunks and joyriders.
10 children were probably killed out of town.
30 children were probably killed by vehicles not exceeding the speed
limit.
So now we have:
109,928 (=15,704 + 15,704 + 5*15,704) incidents involving child
pedestrians.
57 child pedestrians killed in town by drivers who exceed the speed
limit, and who were not drunks or criminals.
71,453 (=109,928*65%) vehicles in incidents with child pedestrians use
a free travelling speed of over 30mph.
57 were killed and we still have 71,396 left who were not killed in
incidents with vehicles that use a free travelling speed of over 30mph
in town.
That's 99.92% who were not killed.
=========================================================
Somebody tell me I'm dreaming.
--
Paul Smith
Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk
please remove "XYZ" to reply by email
Sherilyn
> Hi
>
> 2001 Figures direct from official government reports, which can be
> downloaded via:
>
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html
>
Paul, this is absolutely pathetic. What good can it do to juggle
figures in this way? If you arrange for a motor car to collide with
your body at 5 mph the result will be less lethal than if it collides
with your body at 30 mph and that will be less lethal than if it
collides with your body at 50 mph, and so on. That's because the
human body cannot easily absorb the energy of collision of a massive
object, and the energy to be absorbed is proportional to the square of
the velocity of collision. The same, with a higher threshold of
lethality, is true of other road vehicles.
Humans don't generally die as a result of collision with stationary
cars, though you can fetch yourself a nasty bruise on the shin.
Stationary cars are not damaged by other stationary cars. Again,
kinetic energy is proportional to the _square_ of the speed. That's
the stuff that gets turned to heat in your brake pad, or crumpled
fender, or macerated flesh.
Now if you want to argue that there's something magical about motor
cars that leads the amount of kinetic energy they carry to follow some
wonderful new law that is different from half-m-v-squared, or enables
us to treat the matter of their inertial mass as if it was simply a
statement in a book of fiction, can I suggest that you take it to
alt.physics? Tell them Sherilyn, occasionally of
alt.religion.kibology, sent you, with best wishes.
Or do you want to suggest that the driver of a motor car is uniquely
endowed amongst all humans to exercise foresight and arrange for the
vehicle to stop exactly when it must stop before hitting and damaging a
human or another car? Alas, no such alchemy occurs when a bozo gets
into a tin box on wheels, however much we'd like to believe the car
ads.
Speed really does kill. You want to deny it, but when a fast vehicle
collides with human flesh the denial is no defence.
[...]
--
Sherilyn
Paul Smith
wrote:
Nah, look. You've proved that car / pedestrian impacts kill. Of course
they do. We all know that.
My figures showed that in (realistic scenario) 99.92% of cases
speeding drivers "failed" to kill pedestrians.
If speeding didn't kill in those cases, why would anyone wish to
assume it did in the other 0.08%? Is that reasonable?
We HAVE to look for ANOTHER cause of those crashes and address it.
Sherilyn
Oh, goodie! They are only injured, so it's all right! :)
>
> If speeding didn't kill in those cases, why would anyone wish to
> assume it did in the other 0.08%? Is that reasonable?
Perhaps the poor pedestrian was going to die anyway? Or he died of a
heart attack?
Goodness, maybe we should contact these 99.92% of pedestrians who
didn't die. Maybe most of the were _helped_ by being hit by a car! We
could sell it as a New Age therapy. Auto-traumanetics! Overweight?
Depressed? Just hop out on the highway and wait for a car to come
along. You'll feel better in a trice!
>
> We HAVE to look for ANOTHER cause of those crashes and address it.
Um, these are cases of cars moving and striking a pedestrian. The
driver and the pedestrian acted in such a manner that the car came
into contact with the pedestrian and was reported as a road traffic
accident. Hint: this cannot happen if a car is stationary.
--
Sherilyn
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> >Speed really does kill. You want to deny it, but when a fast vehicle
>> >collides with human flesh the denial is no defence.
>> Nah, look. You've proved that car / pedestrian impacts kill. Of course
>> they do. We all know that.
>> My figures showed that in (realistic scenario) 99.92% of cases
>> speeding drivers "failed" to kill pedestrians.
>Oh, goodie! They are only injured, so it's all right! :)
Oh dear.
>> If speeding didn't kill in those cases, why would anyone wish to
>> assume it did in the other 0.08%? Is that reasonable?
>Perhaps the poor pedestrian was going to die anyway? Or he died of a
>heart attack?
Oh dear.
>Goodness, maybe we should contact these 99.92% of pedestrians who
>didn't die. Maybe most of the were _helped_ by being hit by a car! We
>could sell it as a New Age therapy. Auto-traumanetics! Overweight?
>Depressed? Just hop out on the highway and wait for a car to come
>along. You'll feel better in a trice!
Oh dear.
>> We HAVE to look for ANOTHER cause of those crashes and address it.
>Um, these are cases of cars moving and striking a pedestrian. The
>driver and the pedestrian acted in such a manner that the car came
>into contact with the pedestrian and was reported as a road traffic
>accident. Hint: this cannot happen if a car is stationary.
Argue against cars all you want. I'm not really interested in that
argument. While we have cars they will move.
I am interested in improving road safety, and it's obvious to me from
the interpretation of the figures that free travelling speed bears NO
SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the accident outcomes.
Government figures say 50% die in 30mph impacts, 90% die in 40mph
impacts. These figures are very likely true. But the accident outcomes
were massively changed by drivers slowing down, a) in the danger zone,
and b) before impact. The figures show that the combined effect of
these driver behaviours was greater than effect of their original
speed by more than 625:1. (=50% killed at 30mph impact / 0.08% killed
in scenario)
Sherilyn
And while they move they will have kinetic energy that is proportional
to the square of the speed.
>
> I am interested in improving road safety, and it's obvious to me from
> the interpretation of the figures that free travelling speed bears NO
> SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the accident outcomes.
Who mentioned free travelling speed? These are collisions. What
matters is the speed at which the vehicle and the pedestrian collide.
>
> Government figures say 50% die in 30mph impacts, 90% die in 40mph
> impacts. These figures are very likely true. But the accident outcomes
> were massively changed by drivers slowing down, a) in the danger zone,
> and b) before impact.
Quite. Car collisions with pedestrians rarely happen at the original
travelling speed. The original travelling speed does, however, have a
large effect on the scope for slowing down.
But if you're claiming that speed doesn't kill, what difference does
it make what the speed of collision is? Why bother braking, since it
cannot possibly be the cause of the pedestrian's death? Most likely
the ones who die just do so out of sheer perversity, anyway.
The figures show that the combined effect of
> these driver behaviours was greater than effect of their original
> speed by more than 625:1. (=50% killed at 30mph impact / 0.08% killed
> in scenario)
The figures seem to be quite irrelevant to the issue of whether speed
kills. It does.
--
Sherilyn
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> >> We HAVE to look for ANOTHER cause of those crashes and address it.
>> >Um, these are cases of cars moving and striking a pedestrian. The
>> >driver and the pedestrian acted in such a manner that the car came
>> >into contact with the pedestrian and was reported as a road traffic
>> >accident. Hint: this cannot happen if a car is stationary.
>> Argue against cars all you want. I'm not really interested in that
>> argument. While we have cars they will move.
>And while they move they will have kinetic energy that is proportional
>to the square of the speed.
Of course they do. Yes.
>> I am interested in improving road safety, and it's obvious to me from
>> the interpretation of the figures that free travelling speed bears NO
>> SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the accident outcomes.
>Who mentioned free travelling speed? These are collisions. What
>matters is the speed at which the vehicle and the pedestrian collide.
Speed enforcement and speed limits ONLY change travelling speed. The
implied relationship with impact speed does not exist.
>> Government figures say 50% die in 30mph impacts, 90% die in 40mph
>> impacts. These figures are very likely true. But the accident outcomes
>> were massively changed by drivers slowing down, a) in the danger zone,
>> and b) before impact.
>Quite. Car collisions with pedestrians rarely happen at the original
>travelling speed. The original travelling speed does, however, have a
>large effect on the scope for slowing down.
Well, it sounds reasonable, but we still have to account for the fact
that 99.92% of pedestrians in the example survived.
So with real practical figures the "scope for slowing down" proved to
be irrelevant.
>But if you're claiming that speed doesn't kill, what difference does
>it make what the speed of collision is? Why bother braking, since it
>cannot possibly be the cause of the pedestrian's death? Most likely
>the ones who die just do so out of sheer perversity, anyway.
Oh really! I'd like to improve the behaviours that already saved
99.92% and reduce the behaviours that killed 0.08%. Free travelling
speed played virtually no part in the outcomes.
> The figures show that the combined effect of
>> these driver behaviours was greater than effect of their original
>> speed by more than 625:1. (=50% killed at 30mph impact / 0.08% killed
>> in scenario)
>The figures seem to be quite irrelevant to the issue of whether speed
>kills. It does.
I wish I'd written "proof that speeding doesn't kill", there would
have been many fewer red herrings like this one. I apologise for not
choosing the term more carefully.
Sherilyn
> On 08 Dec 2002 04:06:00 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> We HAVE to look for ANOTHER cause of those crashes and address it.
>
> >> >Um, these are cases of cars moving and striking a pedestrian. The
> >> >driver and the pedestrian acted in such a manner that the car came
> >> >into contact with the pedestrian and was reported as a road traffic
> >> >accident. Hint: this cannot happen if a car is stationary.
>
> >> Argue against cars all you want. I'm not really interested in that
> >> argument. While we have cars they will move.
>
> >And while they move they will have kinetic energy that is proportional
> >to the square of the speed.
>
> Of course they do. Yes.
Good, you're not completely at odds with Newtonian physics. That's a
relief.
>
> >> I am interested in improving road safety, and it's obvious to me from
> >> the interpretation of the figures that free travelling speed bears NO
> >> SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the accident outcomes.
>
> >Who mentioned free travelling speed? These are collisions. What
> >matters is the speed at which the vehicle and the pedestrian collide.
>
> Speed enforcement and speed limits ONLY change travelling speed. The
> implied relationship with impact speed does not exist.
I'm afraid this is where you go completely off the rails. Collisions
occur when people misjudge distance, speed and deceleration. If you
think there's no correlation between free travel speed and collision
speed, might I suggest that you try driving up close to a brick wall
at seventy mph and then try to collide with it at 5 mph? I think
you'll find that your braking distance needs to be rather generous.
>
> >> Government figures say 50% die in 30mph impacts, 90% die in 40mph
> >> impacts. These figures are very likely true. But the accident outcomes
> >> were massively changed by drivers slowing down, a) in the danger zone,
> >> and b) before impact.
>
> >Quite. Car collisions with pedestrians rarely happen at the original
> >travelling speed. The original travelling speed does, however, have a
> >large effect on the scope for slowing down.
>
> Well, it sounds reasonable, but we still have to account for the fact
> that 99.92% of pedestrians in the example survived.
I don't think there's any need to 'account for' the fact that people
in car accidents were not all killed. Rejoice, perhaps. But since
you have already stated that you believe the government lethality
figures it follows that you know that the reason for the low lethality
here is deceleration in the vicinity of pedestrians and prior to
collision.
>
> So with real practical figures the "scope for slowing down" proved to
> be irrelevant.
I beg to differ. We do not permit people to drive at seventy miles
per hour in built-up areas precisely _because_ this would severely
limit their scope for slowing down. The figures that you seem to find
so extrardinarily difficult to understand show the wisdom of sensible
speed limits that, when adhered to, give the drivers a chance to avoid
collisions and avoid killing people even when they do collide.
>
> >But if you're claiming that speed doesn't kill, what difference does
> >it make what the speed of collision is? Why bother braking, since it
> >cannot possibly be the cause of the pedestrian's death? Most likely
> >the ones who die just do so out of sheer perversity, anyway.
>
> Oh really! I'd like to improve the behaviours that already saved
> 99.92% and reduce the behaviours that killed 0.08%. Free travelling
> speed played virtually no part in the outcomes.
Then let's put the speed limits up to 70 mph. I hope to see this
exhortation on your advocacy website tomorrow. I'm sure it will save
drivers a lot of time not having to slow down in town, secure in the
knowledge that their free travel speed matters not one wit.
>
> > The figures show that the combined effect of
> >> these driver behaviours was greater than effect of their original
> >> speed by more than 625:1. (=50% killed at 30mph impact / 0.08% killed
> >> in scenario)
>
> >The figures seem to be quite irrelevant to the issue of whether speed
> >kills. It does.
>
> I wish I'd written "proof that speeding doesn't kill", there would
> have been many fewer red herrings like this one. I apologise for not
> choosing the term more carefully.
Speeding kills. Travel at a high speed and you carry more kinetic
energy and your thinking and braking distance increase.
--
Sherilyn
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> >> I am interested in improving road safety, and it's obvious to me from
>> >> the interpretation of the figures that free travelling speed bears NO
>> >> SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the accident outcomes.
>> >Who mentioned free travelling speed? These are collisions. What
>> >matters is the speed at which the vehicle and the pedestrian collide.
>> Speed enforcement and speed limits ONLY change travelling speed. The
>> implied relationship with impact speed does not exist.
>I'm afraid this is where you go completely off the rails. Collisions
>occur when people misjudge distance, speed and deceleration. If you
>think there's no correlation between free travel speed and collision
>speed, might I suggest that you try driving up close to a brick wall
>at seventy mph and then try to collide with it at 5 mph? I think
>you'll find that your braking distance needs to be rather generous.
But go back to the original post. 99.92% of driver who drive at over
30mph failed to kill child pedestrians, when we know that 50% die in
30mph impacts. I'd say that breaks the "obvious" link between free
travel speeds and pedestrian impact speeds on UK roads. i.e. in the
real world.
>> >> Government figures say 50% die in 30mph impacts, 90% die in 40mph
>> >> impacts. These figures are very likely true. But the accident outcomes
>> >> were massively changed by drivers slowing down, a) in the danger zone,
>> >> and b) before impact.
>> >Quite. Car collisions with pedestrians rarely happen at the original
>> >travelling speed. The original travelling speed does, however, have a
>> >large effect on the scope for slowing down.
>> Well, it sounds reasonable, but we still have to account for the fact
>> that 99.92% of pedestrians in the example survived.
>I don't think there's any need to 'account for' the fact that people
>in car accidents were not all killed. Rejoice, perhaps. But since
>you have already stated that you believe the government lethality
>figures it follows that you know that the reason for the low lethality
>here is deceleration in the vicinity of pedestrians and prior to
>collision.
Yes! And those behaviours are our saviours! We need more of those, and
less of this "stick to 30mph and nothing else matters" crap.
>> So with real practical figures the "scope for slowing down" proved to
>> be irrelevant.
>I beg to differ. We do not permit people to drive at seventy miles
>per hour in built-up areas precisely _because_ this would severely
>limit their scope for slowing down. The figures that you seem to find
>so extrardinarily difficult to understand show the wisdom of sensible
>speed limits that, when adhered to, give the drivers a chance to avoid
>collisions and avoid killing people even when they do collide.
Absolutely. I don't want to change speed limits. They are fine. I just
want to get rid of bonkers enforcement which is based on lies, wasting
resources and making drivers worse.
>> >But if you're claiming that speed doesn't kill, what difference does
>> >it make what the speed of collision is? Why bother braking, since it
>> >cannot possibly be the cause of the pedestrian's death? Most likely
>> >the ones who die just do so out of sheer perversity, anyway.
>> Oh really! I'd like to improve the behaviours that already saved
>> 99.92% and reduce the behaviours that killed 0.08%. Free travelling
>> speed played virtually no part in the outcomes.
>Then let's put the speed limits up to 70 mph. I hope to see this
>exhortation on your advocacy website tomorrow. I'm sure it will save
>drivers a lot of time not having to slow down in town, secure in the
>knowledge that their free travel speed matters not one wit.
No. I wouldn't dream of such a thing. Here's what I want to do with
speed limits:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html
>> > The figures show that the combined effect of
>> >> these driver behaviours was greater than effect of their original
>> >> speed by more than 625:1. (=50% killed at 30mph impact / 0.08% killed
>> >> in scenario)
>> >The figures seem to be quite irrelevant to the issue of whether speed
>> >kills. It does.
>> I wish I'd written "proof that speeding doesn't kill", there would
>> have been many fewer red herrings like this one. I apologise for not
>> choosing the term more carefully.
>Speeding kills. Travel at a high speed and you carry more kinetic
>energy and your thinking and braking distance increase.
But in the real world speeding drivers failed to kill in 99.92% of
cases. We want more of whatever they did right. There's no evidence
that real UK road speeds in excess of the limit played a significant
part in the outcomes.
And don't forget The whole objective of my campaign is to emphasise
the need for safe speeds. Bugger the limit. Let's make sure drivers
can stop in time; a skill they are quite obviously using judging by
the figures we've been discussing.
Paul Smith
<psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
>Now let's get realistic.
>=========================================================
>Twice as many accidents are very minor and unreported.
>Five times as many incidents are near misses and unreported.
>10 children were probably killed by drunks and joyriders.
>10 children were probably killed out of town.
>30 children were probably killed by vehicles not exceeding the speed
>limit.
>So now we have:
>109,928 (=15,704 + 15,704 + 5*15,704) incidents involving child
>pedestrians.
>57 child pedestrians killed in town by drivers who exceed the speed
>limit, and who were not drunks or criminals.
>71,453 (=109,928*65%) vehicles in incidents with child pedestrians use
>a free travelling speed of over 30mph.
>57 were killed and we still have 71,396 left who were not killed in
>incidents with vehicles that use a free travelling speed of over 30mph
>in town.
>That's 99.92% who were not killed.
>=========================================================
Following the excellent discussions with Sherilyn while you've all
been sleeping, I'd like to clarify what I'm claiming and why I believe
it's very important.
When cars hit pedestrians horrible things happen. It would be
excellent to have a road safety strategy which made fewer of these
horrible things happen.
Using the figures above, in the real world when a child gets in front
of a driver who uses more than 30mph as a free travelling speed only 1
time in 1,250 times will that child die. (That's the ratio of 0.08%:1)
Now if the speeding behaviour (and 2% of those vehicles (=25) will
have been going over 50mph in free travelling conditions) had a
significant effect on outcome we would expect to see more than 600
dead children because we know that 50% die in 30mph impacts.
What we do have is 1,249 drivers who had slowed down a) in the danger
area and b) before impact. This is PROOF that drivers are using safe
speed techniques to reduce danger on the roads. Without the safe speed
techniques there would be more than 600 dead children from our example
1,250 incidents.
I claim that this is PROOF that further speed enforcement in 30mph
limits will not save children's lives. Further savings are to be had
in improved driver behaviour (which is working reasonably well, but
obviously has room for improvement).
So let's all call for safe speeds through education and information.
SPEEDING in free travel conditions within the reasonable context of UK
roads DOES NOT KILL in these child pedestrian impact examples.
Peter B
"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8tf5vuk5rlq6m58c9...@4ax.com...
> I am interested in improving road safety,
So what the heck are you actually doing in a practical manner to improve
safety?
Bleating on about the injustice of speed cameras isn't achieving anything
whatever your opinion of them is.
And if they save one life they may even be justified in their own right,
especially if it was yours, or someone close to you.
Pete
Nick Finnigan
>
> Now if the speeding behaviour (and 2% of those vehicles (=25) will
> have been going over 50mph in free travelling conditions) had a
> significant effect on outcome we would expect to see more than 600
> dead children because we know that 50% die in 30mph impacts.
I don't know that.
> What we do have is 1,249 drivers who had slowed down a) in the danger
> area and b) before impact.
You might like to consider what speed the government would
suggest the drivers had slowed to to achieve 0.1% fatalities.
PeterE
Oh no - not the old "if it only saves one life it must be worth it"
argument!
--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither Liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin, 1759)
Matthew Black
<sher...@suespammers.org> writes
>
>Speeding kills. Travel at a high speed and you carry more kinetic
>energy and your thinking and braking distance increase.
Jaywalking also kills. If the government is really so concerned about
saving lives, perhaps it might like to introduce a law against
jaywalking?
--
Matthew Black
JohnF
"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:asv6h3$i5n$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
close to you.
:
: Oh no - not the old "if it only saves one life it must be worth it"
: argument!
Yeah better someone dies than you cannot feel good in your fast toy.
Ade V
> Paul Smith <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> writes:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > 2001 Figures direct from official government reports, which can be
> > downloaded via:
> >
> > http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html
> >
>
> Paul, this is absolutely pathetic. What good can it do to juggle
> figures in this way?
You have to argue, then, that Government is "absolutely pathetic" as
well, since they juggle figures in a very similar way. However, our
Governmnet seems to be more interested in turning drivers who exceed the
posted speed limit into some kind of pariahs. Paul's figures (and
manipulation of) simply go to show what nonsense the Government's
position is. And that's even before you take into account the
guesstimated "fiddle factors".
Of course, you may think it's OK to pillory a certain section of society
by accusing them of a crime they (statistically) don't commit. I don't.
<snip>
> Speed really does kill.
Ah, the old mantra. Speed does *not* kill. If it did, our motorways
would be death zones. So would dual carriageways, long straight A-roads,
etc.
> You want to deny it, but when a fast vehicle
> collides with human flesh the denial is no defence.
Oh, undoubtably. I think what the figures show, however, is that the
vast majority of motorists (and pedestrians) are able to "manage" the
risks and avoid being killed/injured, even if the motorist is speeding.
Much more difficult if the motorist is drunk/drugged, incompetent (or
inattentive), about to die of some ailment, or any number of
alternatives. For those drivers, 5mph is probably excessive speed in any
circumstance.
I wonder, purely as speculation; if the Government stopped making and
showing "speed kills" adverts, and diverted 100% of the cash saved into
improving driver training/testing, whether the death/injury rates in
this country would (a) increase, (b) stay the same, (c) decrease.
My money is on (c).
--
"EDS herding cats? EDS couldn't herd a tortoise in a barrel
without fucking it up!" - Anon
Paul Smith
<pet...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I am interested in improving road safety,
>So what the heck are you actually doing in a practical manner to improve
>safety?
In the last week:
I've sent 189 letters to local authority road safety officers.
Put up two new web pages and prepared a third.
Finally found the truth in the figures presented here in this thread.
Provided information for a motoring journalist.
Provided information for an MP.
Answered ~100 emails.
Made gawd knows how many newsgroup posts.
And probably a dozen other items.
>Bleating on about the injustice of speed cameras isn't achieving anything
>whatever your opinion of them is.
That rather depends on how many people speed cameras kill or save
doesn't it? If you extrapolate the 5% per annum average downwards
trend in fatal accident rate we had for 40 years which suddenly
stopped in about 1993, we would now have 2,200 deaths per year and not
3,400. Since 1993, 6,000 fewer would have died. I say "speed kills" as
a road safety policy, backed by speed cameras, has denied us that
improvement and therefore already killed 6,000 and is now costing
1,000 lives per year.
>And if they save one life they may even be justified in their own right,
>especially if it was yours, or someone close to you.
Bollocks.
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> Now if the speeding behaviour (and 2% of those vehicles (=25) will
>> have been going over 50mph in free travelling conditions) had a
>> significant effect on outcome we would expect to see more than 600
>> dead children because we know that 50% die in 30mph impacts.
> I don't know that.
Nah. It isn't exactly right as stated is it? I'll withdraw that para.
:-)
But it has been the government's spin in various "kill your speed or
kill a child" campaigns.
>> What we do have is 1,249 drivers who had slowed down a) in the danger
>> area and b) before impact.
> You might like to consider what speed the government would
>suggest the drivers had slowed to to achieve 0.1% fatalities.
The argument that 99.92% were not killed by speed does not imply that
the remaining 0.08% were killed by speeding. In fact, very much the
opposite.
I just have to make sure that the folk who matter know these figures
and understand what they mean.
Sherilyn
> On 08 Dec 2002 04:44:11 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> I am interested in improving road safety, and it's obvious to me from
> >> >> the interpretation of the figures that free travelling speed bears NO
> >> >> SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to the accident outcomes.
>
> >> >Who mentioned free travelling speed? These are collisions. What
> >> >matters is the speed at which the vehicle and the pedestrian collide.
>
> >> Speed enforcement and speed limits ONLY change travelling speed. The
> >> implied relationship with impact speed does not exist.
>
> >I'm afraid this is where you go completely off the rails. Collisions
> >occur when people misjudge distance, speed and deceleration. If you
> >think there's no correlation between free travel speed and collision
> >speed, might I suggest that you try driving up close to a brick wall
> >at seventy mph and then try to collide with it at 5 mph? I think
> >you'll find that your braking distance needs to be rather generous.
>
> But go back to the original post. 99.92% of driver who drive at over
> 30mph failed to kill child pedestrians, when we know that 50% die in
> 30mph impacts. I'd say that breaks the "obvious" link between free
> travel speeds and pedestrian impact speeds on UK roads. i.e. in the
> real world.
Ah, you seem to have gone back to assuming that the travelling speed
and the collision speed are the same when a child is involved. This
is the only way I can explain your apparent perplexity at the failure
of the collision lethality to match the lethality of a collision that
occurred at the driving speed.
The two speeds can be very different, and the more time the driver had
to react the longer he has to decelerate, and the slower a driver is
driving, the less kinetic energy he has to get rid of (remember that
equation again, energy is proportional to the _square_ of the
velocity, so halve the driving velocity and you only have to
dissipate one quarter of the kinetic energy). The physics of
collision avoidance are the same no matter what age the pedestrian is,
though obviously it's easier to avoid a smaller target.
[...]
>
> >I don't think there's any need to 'account for' the fact that people
> >in car accidents were not all killed. Rejoice, perhaps. But since
> >you have already stated that you believe the government lethality
> >figures it follows that you know that the reason for the low lethality
> >here is deceleration in the vicinity of pedestrians and prior to
> >collision.
>
> Yes! And those behaviours are our saviours!
Exactly, so we need to make sure that the driver is in a position to
shrug off that kinetic energy easily. Keep his speed low.
> We need more of those, and less of this "stick to 30mph and nothing
> else matters" crap.
I don't think you can have been reading your driving manually
recently. Obeying the speed limit is important, but sometimes
it's necessary to slow down even more and not doing so is also against
the law. Not drinking or taking drugs, keeping your car properly
maintained, showing lights when necessary, giving clear and
appropriate signals, and showing due consideration to other road
users. These requirements (and they are legally enforcable
requirements) aren't just there for the sake of politeness, you know.
They're there to save lives.
>
> >> So with real practical figures the "scope for slowing down" proved to
> >> be irrelevant.
>
> >I beg to differ. We do not permit people to drive at seventy miles
> >per hour in built-up areas precisely _because_ this would severely
> >limit their scope for slowing down. The figures that you seem to find
> >so extrardinarily difficult to understand show the wisdom of sensible
> >speed limits that, when adhered to, give the drivers a chance to avoid
> >collisions and avoid killing people even when they do collide.
>
> Absolutely. I don't want to change speed limits. They are fine. I just
> want to get rid of bonkers enforcement which is based on lies, wasting
> resources and making drivers worse.
This is what makes me throw my hands up in despair. You seem to be
campaigning against a quite sensible law simply because (as far as I'm
aware) you've got a bee in your bonnet about there actually being a
numerical value. There's nothing wrong with a speed limit, it's just
a way of making sure motorists know what is legally required maximum
speed for them to use. If we removed the legal speed limit of 30 in
built up areas I'm sure most drivers would be sensible about it, but
you always get some loony and it's a bit late to prosecute him after
he has found to his consternation that his motor car cannot stop on a
pin to save the little old lady who was much slower than he expected
getting off the zebra crossing or the kid who just 'appeared out of
nowhere' because he was driving too fast to read the road.
>
> >> >But if you're claiming that speed doesn't kill, what difference does
> >> >it make what the speed of collision is? Why bother braking, since it
> >> >cannot possibly be the cause of the pedestrian's death? Most likely
> >> >the ones who die just do so out of sheer perversity, anyway.
>
> >> Oh really! I'd like to improve the behaviours that already saved
> >> 99.92% and reduce the behaviours that killed 0.08%. Free travelling
> >> speed played virtually no part in the outcomes.
>
> >Then let's put the speed limits up to 70 mph. I hope to see this
> >exhortation on your advocacy website tomorrow. I'm sure it will save
> >drivers a lot of time not having to slow down in town, secure in the
> >knowledge that their free travel speed matters not one wit.
>
> No. I wouldn't dream of such a thing. Here's what I want to do with
> speed limits:
>
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html
Gosh, do you actually read the documents you cite? I read this:
Read more about 85th percentiles: (overview) and (compendium
of research)
I clicked on the link marked "(compendium of research)" and found
myself here:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm
The document at that link, The Synthesis of Safety Research Related to
Speed and Speed Limits, cites the 30% figures for speed-related
accidents that you try so hard to wave away in another part of your
site, and also says:
Excessive vehicle speed reduces a driver's ability to
negotiate curves or maneuver around obstacles in the roadway,
extends the distance necessary for a vehicle to stop, and
increases the distance a vehicle travels while the driver
reacts to a hazard.
Which is what I've been trying to get through to you for quite some
time now. :)
According to that review of the scientific literature, automobile
accidents have generally been found to follow a U pattern around the
mean traffic speed, with the higher left gradient being due to the
fact that low speeds are required for some necessary maneuvers, and
the lethality going up vastly on the shallower right side. The upshot
is that the lethal accidents tend to occur at higher speeds [Bowie and
Waltz, 1994], with the highest raw accident rate in one landmark study
that controlled for low velocity turning accidents (which are also a
significant traffic problem that is speed-related) occurring at speed
over two SDs above mean traffic speed [West and Dunn, 1971]. As
regards driver fatalities, a fourth-power relationship was found
between change of speed at collision and driver fatalities [Joksch,
1993]. And the picture for pedestrian involvement is far grimmer.
And then there's the tabulation [Table 3] of studies showing the
effects of raising and lowering speed limits on road speeds of drivers
and incidence of serious accidents. The findings are summarised as
follows:
"The table shows that crash-incidence or crash severity, or
both measures, generally decline whenever speed limits have
been reduced. Conversely, the number of crashes or crash
severity generally increased when speed limits were raised,
especially on freeways."
Then there's Nilsson, 1981, who used crash data on rural and urban
Swedish roads to derive a functional relationship between changes in a
speed limit and traffic safety, and Finch et al, 1994, who developed a
model mapping change in mean traffic speed to crashes and suggests
that "for every 1 mi/h change in speed, the number of injury crashes
increases 5 percent or a 3-percent increase in injury crashes for
every 1-km/h increase in speed."
>
> >> > The figures show that the combined effect of
> >> >> these driver behaviours was greater than effect of their original
> >> >> speed by more than 625:1. (=50% killed at 30mph impact / 0.08% killed
> >> >> in scenario)
>
> >> >The figures seem to be quite irrelevant to the issue of whether speed
> >> >kills. It does.
>
> >> I wish I'd written "proof that speeding doesn't kill", there would
> >> have been many fewer red herrings like this one. I apologise for not
> >> choosing the term more carefully.
>
> >Speeding kills. Travel at a high speed and you carry more kinetic
> >energy and your thinking and braking distance increase.
>
> But in the real world speeding drivers failed to kill in 99.92% of
> cases.
Read the documents you cite on that website of yours.
[...]
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
You won't find any opposition from me. It's against the law in many
countries.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 10:18:52 -0000, "Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> Now if the speeding behaviour (and 2% of those vehicles (=25) will
> >> have been going over 50mph in free travelling conditions) had a
> >> significant effect on outcome we would expect to see more than 600
> >> dead children because we know that 50% die in 30mph impacts.
>
> > I don't know that.
>
> Nah. It isn't exactly right as stated is it? I'll withdraw that para.
> :-)
>
> But it has been the government's spin in various "kill your speed or
> kill a child" campaigns.
Given that you accept that children do die from being struck by
vehicles, can you at least accept that the cause of death in a
collision between a child and a vehicle is due to absorption of
some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle by the child, and
furthermore that the kinetic energy of the vehicle, as for any other
object, is proportional to the square of the speed?
If so, I really don't see what problem you have with the fact that
slower traffic speeds will save the lives of children. Indeed, this
is the import of that review document of scientific research that you
cite on your website.
[...]
--
Sherilyn
NM
Is that necessarily a good thing? It could be argued that given a
collision between child and vehicle is inevitable it may be better to go
faster, then the child will be dead, as opposed to living it's life as a
cripple and becoming a burden to the rest of society.
More effort should be made to keep children away from vehicles (moving
at any speed) but if they are going to play in the traffic then get it
over quickly.
NM
JohnF
"Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:87wumkr...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
Forget it. The general population rightly or wrongly accepts that
speed kills. A very small minority believe otherwise and make a lot of
noise about it. The only change is going to be that more people
believe that speed kills so the minority are wasting their time and
losing the battle.
Paul Smith
>>>> >Speed really does kill. You want to deny it, but when a fast vehicle
>>>> >collides with human flesh the denial is no defence.
>>>> Nah, look. You've proved that car / pedestrian impacts kill. Of course
>>>> they do. We all know that.
>>>> My figures showed that in (realistic scenario) 99.92% of cases
>>>> speeding drivers "failed" to kill pedestrians.
>>>Oh, goodie! They are only injured, so it's all right! :)
>>Oh dear.
>Why bother?
Honestly? I use these people to refine my arguments. :-)
One can learn quite a bit by searching for the answers to questions
too, even sometimes when the questions are stupid.
>Just mark her (him? it?) down as another anti-car bigot
>with a completely closed "mind", killfile and move on. People
>like that aren't interested in evidence. Doubtless they are
>interested in homeopathy, crystals and fung shei, though.
<snigger>
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> But go back to the original post. 99.92% of driver who drive at over
>> 30mph failed to kill child pedestrians, when we know that 50% die in
>> 30mph impacts. I'd say that breaks the "obvious" link between free
>> travel speeds and pedestrian impact speeds on UK roads. i.e. in the
>> real world.
>Ah, you seem to have gone back to assuming that the travelling speed
>and the collision speed are the same when a child is involved. This
>is the only way I can explain your apparent perplexity at the failure
>of the collision lethality to match the lethality of a collision that
>occurred at the driving speed.
>The two speeds can be very different, and the more time the driver had
>to react the longer he has to decelerate, and the slower a driver is
>driving, the less kinetic energy he has to get rid of (remember that
>equation again, energy is proportional to the _square_ of the
>velocity, so halve the driving velocity and you only have to
>dissipate one quarter of the kinetic energy). The physics of
>collision avoidance are the same no matter what age the pedestrian is,
>though obviously it's easier to avoid a smaller target.
No. I'm just saying that we need policies that influence impact
speeds, not policies which influence free travelling speeds.
These figures prove no practical link between free travelling speeds
and impact speeds.
>> >I don't think there's any need to 'account for' the fact that people
>> >in car accidents were not all killed. Rejoice, perhaps. But since
>> >you have already stated that you believe the government lethality
>> >figures it follows that you know that the reason for the low lethality
>> >here is deceleration in the vicinity of pedestrians and prior to
>> >collision.
>> Yes! And those behaviours are our saviours!
>Exactly, so we need to make sure that the driver is in a position to
>shrug off that kinetic energy easily. Keep his speed low.
Keeping his speed low wouldn't have helped in 99.92% of cases. We need
drivers who slow down when necessary as we have in 99.92% of cases.
More of that please.
There's nothing wrong with speed limits. We just need to enforce them
sensibly and have road safety policies which actually save lives.
>> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html
>
>Gosh, do you actually read the documents you cite? I read this:
Of course.
I don't agree with everything at that reference site, but I do agree
with a lot. So what? Show me any reference source where you agree with
100%...
I'm not afraid of alternative views. Why should I be? I want balanced
arguments based on all the evidence.
[snip quotes: not relevant]
>> >> > The figures show that the combined effect of
>> >> >> these driver behaviours was greater than effect of their original
>> >> >> speed by more than 625:1. (=50% killed at 30mph impact / 0.08% killed
>> >> >> in scenario)
>> >> >The figures seem to be quite irrelevant to the issue of whether speed
>> >> >kills. It does.
>> >> I wish I'd written "proof that speeding doesn't kill", there would
>> >> have been many fewer red herrings like this one. I apologise for not
>> >> choosing the term more carefully.
>> >Speeding kills. Travel at a high speed and you carry more kinetic
>> >energy and your thinking and braking distance increase.
>> But in the real world speeding drivers failed to kill in 99.92% of
>> cases.
>Read the documents you cite on that website of yours.
What? Again?
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> But it has been the government's spin in various "kill your speed or
>> kill a child" campaigns.
>Given that you accept that children do die from being struck by
>vehicles, can you at least accept that the cause of death in a
>collision between a child and a vehicle is due to absorption of
>some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle by the child, and
>furthermore that the kinetic energy of the vehicle, as for any other
>object, is proportional to the square of the speed?
Proportional to the speed AT IMPACT, yes.
>If so, I really don't see what problem you have with the fact that
>slower traffic speeds will save the lives of children. Indeed, this
>is the import of that review document of scientific research that you
>cite on your website.
Because these figures show VERY clearly that the speed at impact is
NOT proportional to the free travelling speed in 99.92% of cases.
So policies which reduce the speed at impact please, not policies
which alter free travelling speed and do not influence speed at
impact.
Hell, I can even show how reducing free travelling speed might well
INCREASE speed at impact. Let's not risk causing that PLEASE!
Sherilyn
To accept the collision as inevitable is the first serious mistake.
The second mistake is to recommend premeditated homicide.
> More effort should be made to keep children away from vehicles (moving
> at any speed) but if they are going to play in the traffic then get it
> over quickly.
We can't keep the vehicles away from the children, they're everywhere,
on every street. To keep contact between children and fast vehicles
to a minimum, it is necessary to have vehicles reduce their speed in
the urban environment.
Which is of course what we do now.
--
Sherilyn
Alan Crocker
get a life
"Huge" <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in message
news:asvinv$42u$1...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> In article <8tf5vuk5rlq6m58c9...@4ax.com>, Paul Smith
<psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> writes:
> >On 08 Dec 2002 03:37:32 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>> >Speed really does kill. You want to deny it, but when a fast vehicle
> >>> >collides with human flesh the denial is no defence.
> >
> >>> Nah, look. You've proved that car / pedestrian impacts kill. Of course
> >>> they do. We all know that.
> >
> >>> My figures showed that in (realistic scenario) 99.92% of cases
> >>> speeding drivers "failed" to kill pedestrians.
> >
> >>Oh, goodie! They are only injured, so it's all right! :)
> >
> >Oh dear.
>
> Why bother? Just mark her (him? it?) down as another anti-car bigot
> with a completely closed "mind", killfile and move on. People
> like that aren't interested in evidence. Doubtless they are
> interested in homeopathy, crystals and fung shei, though.
>
>
> --
> "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
> The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
> [Delete "nospam." to email me]
>
>
PeterE
This particular fast toy being what exactly?
PeterE
And banning cycling on public roads would save many lives each year. "If it
saves one life, it must be worth it."
So why don't you support that?
PeterE
Alan Crocker wrote in message ...
>
>so as i'm anti speeding in built up areas, that means i'm anti car??
A built up area being what exactly?
Is it the kind of rural road with a handful of cottages over a one-mile
stretch that prompts certain highway authorities to impose a 30 mph limit?
If you define the above as a built-up area it strongly suggests that you are
anti-car.
Sherilyn
I don't know how you get that from the figures you cite, or why you
would think that the figures you cite were adequate for calculating
collision speeds or road speeds of cars involved in the accident. On
the other hand, you feel free to ignore the massive body of scientific
evidence linking travel speed and incidence of serious and fatal
accidents that is reviewed on the US website that you cite. You seem
to be determined to pit your own amateur arithmetic against the great
body of peer-reviewed scientific studies. You won't get anywhere with
those methods.
Claiming that you want all drivers to drive like those involved in
accidents that happen to be non-fatal doesn't make a lot of sense, I'm
afraid. I'd rather concentrate on eliminating all accidents and
reducing their severity by continuing to enforce speed limits.
Now I notice that you have not responded to the evidence that I cited
to support my views and the views of the Department for Transport. I
think you should think carefully about what that means. The
Department for Transport is the body that you have to convince, so if
they look at your little back-of-envelope calculations on one hand and
the vast body of road research on the other, well, what do you think
they'll say?
[...]
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> On 08 Dec 2002 14:12:39 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >> But it has been the government's spin in various "kill your speed or
> >> kill a child" campaigns.
>
> >Given that you accept that children do die from being struck by
> >vehicles, can you at least accept that the cause of death in a
> >collision between a child and a vehicle is due to absorption of
> >some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle by the child, and
> >furthermore that the kinetic energy of the vehicle, as for any other
> >object, is proportional to the square of the speed?
>
> Proportional to the speed AT IMPACT, yes.
And the speed at impact from a car driving at 70 mph will be greater
than the speed at impact from a car driving at 30 mph, all other
factors being equal. Can you at least concede that? Remember, I
have already cited numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies showing a
direct causal relationship between _driving_ speed and incidence of
serious and fatal accidents.
>
> >If so, I really don't see what problem you have with the fact that
> >slower traffic speeds will save the lives of children. Indeed, this
> >is the import of that review document of scientific research that you
> >cite on your website.
>
> Because these figures show VERY clearly that the speed at impact is
> NOT proportional to the free travelling speed in 99.92% of cases.
So you say. But I'm afraid that you're wrong. Your figures show
nothing of the sort, nor could they show anything of the kind either
way.
Look at your methodology. You take the 65% incidence of traffic
traveling at more than 30mph in a 30 mph zone and then you multiply
that by the number of pedestrian children injured in accidents. You
then claim (I have absolutely no idea why) that the result of this
calculation gives the number of pedestrian children killed in
accidents by cars travelling at more than 30 mph. You then subtract
the number of fatalities and claim that the remainder were all hit and
not killed by cars travelling at over 30 mph. You appear to recognise
that travel speed and collision speed are distinct, but still you go
through this pantomime of pretending that they are the same for the
purpose of calculating pedestrian mortality rates.
It's absolutely hopeless. If you were not so evidently sincere I'd
suggest that it must be some kind of spoof!
But it gets even funnier. You arbitrarily decide that '10 children
were probably killed by drunks and joyriders...' and a whole catechism
of guesses, all of them in round number, all of them provided with
absolutely no justification.
>
> So policies which reduce the speed at impact please, not policies
> which alter free travelling speed and do not influence speed at
> impact.
>
> Hell, I can even show how reducing free travelling speed might well
> INCREASE speed at impact. Let's not risk causing that PLEASE!
Trying to argue against road policies with really mindbogglingly
stupid calculations written on the back of an envelope will not help
you to convince either me or the Department for Transport that its
current policies, which are based on the peer reviewed scientific
literature and also happen to be showing a modest success, are wrong.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> JohnF wrote in message <103935196...@dyke.uk.clara.net>...
> >
> >"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:asv6h3$i5n$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >close to you.
> >:
> >: Oh no - not the old "if it only saves one life it must be worth it"
> >: argument!
> >:
> >Yeah better someone dies than you cannot feel good in your fast toy.
>
> And banning cycling on public roads would save many lives each year. "If it
> saves one life, it must be worth it."
It is already banned.
>
> So why don't you support that?
>
What an odd assumption.
--
Sherilyn
Stephen Cragg
> doesn't it? If you extrapolate the 5% per annum average downwards
> trend in fatal accident rate we had for 40 years which suddenly
> stopped in about 1993, we would now have 2,200 deaths per year and not
> 3,400. Since 1993, 6,000 fewer would have died. I say "speed kills" as
> a road safety policy, backed by speed cameras, has denied us that
> improvement and therefore already killed 6,000 and is now costing
> 1,000 lives per year.
>
Paul,
Go back 40 years. Did we have crash test dummies? Did we have rigorous
reporting of accidents?
In the last 40 years, vehicles have improved immensly w.r.t. safety of both
the occupants inside and out.
As computing power increased, so did the ability to process the large
amounts of accident reporting and thus allowed road engineers to understand
what makes an accident blackspot and subsequently how to improve them.
Most of the low cost measures have now been implemented. As with many other
areas (aircraft engine noise comes to mind from my degree), the returns
gained from investment made have been diminishing over that time.
In parallel with this, the numbers of vehicles and hence the potential for
numbers of accidents have been increasing.
Combine the two and the number of accidents must start to level out (e.g. if
accidents got down to zero, you cannot keep on a downward trend!).
Accepting that zero accidents is impossible and vehicle km driven continues
to increase, it wouldn't suprise me if accident numbers begin to increase
(or have they already).
I am not saying your argument is completely wrong. I'm all for more human
enforcement rather than mechanical (personal preference), but your use of
back of the envelope statistics does not convince me.
Regards
Stephen Cragg
Scotland
Stephen Cragg
it
> > saves one life, it must be worth it."
>
> It is already banned.
>
Cycling on a public road isn't banned in the UK.
Regards
Stephen Cragg
Scotland
p.s. So glad I visited your website. The talk.origins NG and FAQ is
fascinating.
Sherilyn
> > > And banning cycling on public roads would save many lives each
> > > year. "If it saves one life, it must be worth it."
> >
> > It is already banned.
> >
> ?Are you in the UK?
>
> Cycling on a public road isn't banned in the UK.
My apologies to all concerned. I misread that as 'cycling on
pavements'. Suffice to say that I now realise that the suggestion was
not a serious one.
--
Sherilyn
PeterE
>"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>> >:
>> >: Oh no - not the old "if it only saves one life it must be worth it"
>> >: argument!
>> >:
>> >Yeah better someone dies than you cannot feel good in your fast toy.
>>
>> And banning cycling on public roads would save many lives each year. "If
it
>> saves one life, it must be worth it."
>
>It is already banned.
Oh no it isn't. Do all your other statements have a similarly weak grounding
in fact?
>> So why don't you support that?
>>
>What an odd assumption.
Why is that an odd assumption? WK is advocating a particular measure on the
grounds that it may save at least one life, regardless of what other
side-effects it might have.
Surely the same applies to banning cycling on public roads? (a measure,
which, incidentally, I don't support, even though it would undoubtedly save
lives)
W K
> And banning cycling on public roads would save many lives each year. "If
it
> saves one life, it must be worth it."
Ding.... wrong.
The BMA has worked out that the health benefits of cycling outweigh accident
risks by 20:1
So anyone looking a bit lardy or out of breath needs to be forced onto a
bike, as not doing so is a danger to their long term health.
W K
> Why bother? Just mark her (him? it?) down as another anti-car bigot
> with a completely closed "mind", killfile and move on. People
> like that aren't interested in evidence.
That is hilarious.
PeterE
But the direct result of banning cycling would be to save lives. It might
indirectly result in shorter life expectancies for some people, who knows.
And people can always take exercise in other ways. Despite the decline in
cycling, overall life expectancy continues to improve.
Likewise fitting all road vehicles with a 20 mph speed limiter would
undoubtedly save lives. But who can say how many lives it would curtail
through plummeting economic performance?
Phil Bradshaw
<snip>
>
> Trying to argue against road policies with really mindbogglingly
> stupid calculations written on the back of an envelope will not help
> you to convince either me or the Department for Transport that its
> current policies, which are based on the peer reviewed scientific
> literature and also happen to be showing a modest success, are wrong.
Trying to do so from the viewpoint of a car driver also leaves out
considerations with respect to heavy vehicles; for example, there are even
some Motorway curves that rightly are limited to 40mph to stop artics
rolling over yet can be negotiated at NSL in a repmobile. At t'other end
there is some degree of bozo accommodation to factor in as in wet weather
85%ile dictating lower limit for a surface with below standard frictional
properties. In between there are planning requirements (safe stopping
distance sight lines) that often are munged as a development works its way
through the system in coping with existing infrastructure and the rest
leading to some relaxation of highway layout requirements. And many more
details that end up as a sign on the verge, driver training much beyond
minimal test requirements being but one. Maybe the emphasis of the argument
should be on driver training rather than speed limits in particular such
that improved standard of driving evinced as reduction in KSIs may lead to
relaxation of speed limits. Or just let dear old DoT et al mop up after so
many bozos; likely we'll always have a percentage of them. Pedestrians too,
with equal right to pass and re-pass along highways maintainable at public
expense save Special Roads.
Richard Burton
for those of you who are not familiar with Mr Smith, logic and proof are not
his strong points.
> =========================================================
> 15,704 child pedestrians injured in accidents.
> 107 child pedestrians killed.
>
> 65% of traffic in 30mph zones free travels at over 30mph.
>
>
> Therefore
>
> 10,207 (15,704*65%) vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a
> free travelling speed of more than 30mph.
>
> Even assuming that all the child pedestrians were killed by drivers
> who free travel at over 30mph, we still have 10,100 (=10,207-107) left
> who were NOT killed by vehicles that have a free travelling speed of
> over 30mph.
>
> That's 99% who were NOT killed.
Lies, damned lies, and Paul Smith's statistics. This is possibly the worst
misuse of statistical analysis since Harold Wilson told us the pound in our
pocket was just the same after he devalued.
> =========================================================
>
>
> Now let's get realistic.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!! P Smith, realistic????????????
> =========================================================
> Twice as many accidents are very minor and unreported.
> Five times as many incidents are near misses and unreported.
> 10 children were probably killed by drunks and joyriders.
> 10 children were probably killed out of town.
> 30 children were probably killed by vehicles not exceeding the speed
> limit.
>
> So now we have:
>
> 109,928 (=15,704 + 15,704 + 5*15,704) incidents involving child
> pedestrians.
> 57 child pedestrians killed in town by drivers who exceed the speed
> limit, and who were not drunks or criminals.
>
> 71,453 (=109,928*65%) vehicles in incidents with child pedestrians use
> a free travelling speed of over 30mph.
>
> 57 were killed and we still have 71,396 left who were not killed in
> incidents with vehicles that use a free travelling speed of over 30mph
> in town.
>
> That's 99.92% who were not killed.
Absolute total hogwash. It's so obviously the conclusion of someone who is
already certain what the answer is it needs no refutation.
> =========================================================
>
> Somebody tell me I'm dreaming.
Yes Paul, you're dreaming - your dreaming that you are a logical, rational
human being. Do us all a favour and wake up before you drive anything.
> --
Rich
Richard Burton
>
> And banning cycling on public roads would save many lives each year. "If
it
> saves one life, it must be worth it."
cycling is incredibly safe, because cyclists know that they are likely to be
injured in any collision. Driving is extremely dangerous for pedestrians
and cyclists, because drivers know that they are extremely unlikely to be
killed or injured in collision with a pedestrian.
By the way, cycling saves more lives in a week than the number of cycling
casualties every year: one of the largest killers in this country is heart
disease, and cycling helps prevent it. Regular cyclists also suffer less
from all forms of disease, and are physically ten years younger than the
average.
Banning driving on public roads would save almost all the road casualties,
banning cycling would increase the numbers dieing from heart disease.
Banning driving would mean an increase in the numbers of cyclists, and would
therefore improve health overall, and reduce the carnage on our roads.
Rich
Richard Burton
>
> unremitting stupidity. Wish I could do that.
Try looking in the mirror and seeing if you can keep your temper in the face
of crass stupidity.
David Kemper
"Richard Burton" <burtt...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JrOI9.588$JP....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Right, good plan there. So how do I get to the broken down equipment
with all my tools and spare parts then? I'm the only guy within 100
miles who repairs that equipment and without it working businesses would
fail, jobs would be lost and lots of customers of the affected business
would be less than happy at the equipment failure and closure of their
local provider of their service.
Oh I know! Scrap the old equipment and buy a new one. Hmmm. Slight
problem here.... Can't deliver the new one and can't dispose of the old
one. Not allowed to drive are we? Back to drawing board? Perhaps we and
the environment would be better served if I carry on driving and fixing
the old ones? After all, I haven't killed any children for at least a
week & I'm not even going to mention cyclists.
David
Not a fan of the half baked
W K
> W K wrote in message ...
> >
> >"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:asvoio$r5i$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >> And banning cycling on public roads would save many lives each year.
"If
> >it
> >> saves one life, it must be worth it."
> >
> >Ding.... wrong.
> >
> >The BMA has worked out that the health benefits of cycling outweigh
> accident
> >risks by 20:1
> >
> >So anyone looking a bit lardy or out of breath needs to be forced onto a
> >bike, as not doing so is a danger to their long term health.
>
> But the direct result of banning cycling would be to save lives.
I wasn't being entirely serious, but ah welll... Would it?
OK a bike's worse for its user in an accident, but better for others.
How do you think these two balance out?
<snip -- god... I wasn't being _that_ serious >
W K
"NM" <nik.m...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3DF358DA...@chello.nl...
> Sherilyn wrote:
> > If so, I really don't see what problem you have with the fact that
> > slower traffic speeds will save the lives of children. Indeed, this
> > is the import of that review document of scientific research that you
> > cite on your website.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Is that necessarily a good thing? It could be argued that given a
> collision between child and vehicle is inevitable it may be better to go
> faster, then the child will be dead, as opposed to living it's life as a
> cripple and becoming a burden to the rest of society.
The main point would be to try to go at a speed where you can stop before
you hit the child.
I think even Paul Smith would agree with me on that one.
Perhaps you should just carry a 2x4 in your car so you can finish a kid off
if they look like they might be a burden after you've hit them.
> More effort should be made to keep children away from vehicles (moving
> at any speed)
Or the other way round. If there is a motorway alternative make the road a
pain to use. Keep cars off residential roads esp. where rat running.
Failing that sterilise the whole population, or amputate all children's legs
so they cannot run out into the road.
Peter B
> JohnF wrote in message <103935196...@dyke.uk.clara.net>...
> >
> >"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:asv6h3$i5n$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >close to you.
> >:
> >: Oh no - not the old "if it only saves one life it must be worth it"
> >: argument!
> >:
> >Yeah better someone dies than you cannot feel good in your fast toy.
>
> And banning cycling on public roads would save many lives each year. "If
it
> saves one life, it must be worth it."
>
> So why don't you support that?
What is it that Huge says about this form of retort? Tu quoque?
And why bring cycling into the discussion anyway?
Pete
PeterE
>
>"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:asvoio$r5i$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> JohnF wrote in message <103935196...@dyke.uk.clara.net>...
>> >Yeah better someone dies than you cannot feel good in your fast toy.
>>
>> And banning cycling on public roads would save many lives each year. "If
>it
>> saves one life, it must be worth it."
>>
>> So why don't you support that?
>
>What is it that Huge says about this form of retort? Tu quoque?
Nothing to do with "tu quoque" - I'm not accusing you or anyone else of
anything.
>And why bring cycling into the discussion anyway?
Purely as a pertinent illustration of the stupidity and futility of the "if
it only saves one life it must be worth it" argument.
Peter B
"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8dh6vu810n44n8bla...@4ax.com...
>
> >> I am interested in improving road safety,
>
>
> In the last week:
>
> I've sent 189 letters to local authority road safety officers.
>
> Put up two new web pages and prepared a third.
>
> Finally found the truth in the figures presented here in this thread.
>
> Provided information for a motoring journalist.
>
> Provided information for an MP.
>
> Answered ~100 emails.
>
> Made gawd knows how many newsgroup posts.
>
> And probably a dozen other items.
Well then I stand corrected.
Very commendable (not being sarcastic) but your own PR on this group gives
the impression you're obsessed with speed limits and the methods adopted to
enforce them.
I previously made the following statement:
> >Bleating on about the injustice of speed cameras isn't achieving anything
> >whatever your opinion of them is.
> >And if they save one life they may even be justified in their own right,
> >especially if it was yours, or someone close to you.
To which you replied:
> Bollocks.
Just when I thought you had something intelligent to say.......oh well.
Pete
Alan Crocker
sides and fuck wits doing 50 mph, just like mr smith keeps telling us don't
kill...
i soo want to be anti car, but then I use the public transport:-(
"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:asvpc2$2po$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Alan Crocker
> On 08 Dec 2002 14:12:39 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >> But it has been the government's spin in various "kill your speed or
> >> kill a child" campaigns.
>
> >Given that you accept that children do die from being struck by
> >vehicles, can you at least accept that the cause of death in a
> >collision between a child and a vehicle is due to absorption of
> >some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle by the child, and
> >furthermore that the kinetic energy of the vehicle, as for any other
> >object, is proportional to the square of the speed?
>
> Proportional to the speed AT IMPACT, yes.
>
> >slower traffic speeds will save the lives of children. Indeed, this
> >is the import of that review document of scientific research that you
> >cite on your website.
>
> NOT proportional to the free travelling speed in 99.92% of cases.
>
> which alter free travelling speed and do not influence speed at
> impact.
>
> Hell, I can even show how reducing free travelling speed might well
> INCREASE speed at impact. Let's not risk causing that PLEASE!
so, lower speed means less reaction time???
> Paul Smith
> Scotland, UK
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk
> please remove "XYZ" to reply by email
PeterE
>"PeterE" <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:asvpc2$2po$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> Alan Crocker wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >so as i'm anti speeding in built up areas, that means i'm anti car??
>>
>> A built up area being what exactly?
>>
>> Is it the kind of rural road with a handful of cottages over a one-mile
>> stretch that prompts certain highway authorities to impose a 30 mph
limit?
>>
>> If you define the above as a built-up area it strongly suggests that you
>are
>> anti-car.
>
>sides and fuck wits doing 50 mph, just like mr smith keeps telling us don't
>kill...
Agreed - anyone doing 50 mph or even 40 mph in such circumstances is a
fuckwit and deserves to be prosecuted. As I suspect Mr Smith would agree.
Narrow street, houses both sides, cars parked both sides - I wouldn't be
doing anywhere near 30 down there.
But the policy of imposing 30 mph limits on roads that do not remotely fit
the description above tends to undermine such speed limits where they are
appropriate.
And why not move those Gatsos from rural main roads to urban areas?
>i soo want to be anti car, but then I use the public transport:-(
Well there you go then.....
Alan Crocker
year so that you can speed?
"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
news:tnc5vu43flogsnqnr...@4ax.com...
> Hi
>
> 2001 Figures direct from official government reports, which can be
> downloaded via:
>
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html
>
> Logical proof:
> =========================================================
> 15,704 child pedestrians injured in accidents.
> 107 child pedestrians killed.
>
> 65% of traffic in 30mph zones free travels at over 30mph.
>
>
> Therefore
>
> 10,207 (15,704*65%) vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a
> free travelling speed of more than 30mph.
>
> Even assuming that all the child pedestrians were killed by drivers
> who free travel at over 30mph, we still have 10,100 (=10,207-107) left
> who were NOT killed by vehicles that have a free travelling speed of
> over 30mph.
>
> That's 99% who were NOT killed.
> =========================================================
>
>
> Now let's get realistic.
> =========================================================
> Twice as many accidents are very minor and unreported.
> Five times as many incidents are near misses and unreported.
> 10 children were probably killed by drunks and joyriders.
> 10 children were probably killed out of town.
> 30 children were probably killed by vehicles not exceeding the speed
> limit.
>
> So now we have:
>
> 109,928 (=15,704 + 15,704 + 5*15,704) incidents involving child
> pedestrians.
> 57 child pedestrians killed in town by drivers who exceed the speed
> limit, and who were not drunks or criminals.
>
> 71,453 (=109,928*65%) vehicles in incidents with child pedestrians use
> a free travelling speed of over 30mph.
>
> 57 were killed and we still have 71,396 left who were not killed in
> incidents with vehicles that use a free travelling speed of over 30mph
> in town.
>
> That's 99.92% who were not killed.
> =========================================================
>
> Somebody tell me I'm dreaming.
> --
John B
> fallacy says that it is OK for me to do behaviour 'x' because you
> do behaviour 'y'. I won't give an example, because last time I did
> Buckley edited it into a libellous version of what I had actually
> said.
Hit hard didn't it - when you were caught out for posting misleading and
incorrect information.
Did Scotrail ever contact you over your attempt to falsely discredit
them?
Funny how you never came back when challenged and instead keep trying to
cover your tracks.
Keep up the good work in making a greater fool of yourself; it amuses
us.
John Buckley
however I'm truly flattered that you keep up your
> More likely, considering the banning of cycling is "reductio ad
> absurdam" (sp?). But it is nonetheless a reasonable point against the
> ludicrous argument that it is worth doing anything that saves one life,
> which is itself a "reductio" argument.
Nick Finnigan
> Paul Smith <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> writes:
> > On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 10:18:52 -0000, "Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> Given that you accept that children do die from being struck by
> vehicles, can you at least accept that the cause of death in a
> collision between a child and a vehicle is due to absorption of
> some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle by the child,
Well, sometime the child's head will be crushed underneath
the vehicle, sometimes the child's head will hit the pavement,
sometimes the handlebars will penetrate the child's abdomen...
you might count those as absorption of KE, but maybe not.
Nick Finnigan
> >> have been going over 50mph in free travelling conditions) had a
> >> significant effect on outcome we would expect to see more than 600
> >> dead children because we know that 50% die in 30mph impacts.
>
> > I don't know that.
>
> Nah. It isn't exactly right as stated is it? I'll withdraw that para.
I was only referring to the last clause.
> >> What we do have is 1,249 drivers who had slowed down a) in the danger
> >> area and b) before impact.
>
> > You might like to consider what speed the government would
> >suggest the drivers had slowed to to achieve 0.1% fatalities.
>
> The argument that 99.92% were not killed by speed does not imply that
> the remaining 0.08% were killed by speeding. In fact, very much the
> opposite.
I'm not suggesting that they are, but wondering what speed
you think they would have reduced to at the point of impact.
Paul Smith
<pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>nope, built up means narrow streets, house both sides, cars parked both
>>sides and fuck wits doing 50 mph, just like mr smith keeps telling us don't
>>kill...
>Agreed - anyone doing 50 mph or even 40 mph in such circumstances is a
>fuckwit and deserves to be prosecuted. As I suspect Mr Smith would agree.
Yep. Absolutely.
Paul Smith
<hot...@stcragg.com> wrote:
>> That rather depends on how many people speed cameras kill or save
>> doesn't it? If you extrapolate the 5% per annum average downwards
>> trend in fatal accident rate we had for 40 years which suddenly
>> stopped in about 1993, we would now have 2,200 deaths per year and not
>> 3,400. Since 1993, 6,000 fewer would have died. I say "speed kills" as
>> a road safety policy, backed by speed cameras, has denied us that
>> improvement and therefore already killed 6,000 and is now costing
>> 1,000 lives per year.
>Go back 40 years. Did we have crash test dummies? Did we have rigorous
>reporting of accidents?
Actually, yes, I think we did. Just.
>In the last 40 years, vehicles have improved immensly w.r.t. safety of both
>the occupants inside and out.
And they have not stopped improving.
>As computing power increased, so did the ability to process the large
>amounts of accident reporting and thus allowed road engineers to understand
>what makes an accident blackspot and subsequently how to improve them.
And a lot of this work is still going on.
>Most of the low cost measures have now been implemented. As with many other
>areas (aircraft engine noise comes to mind from my degree), the returns
>gained from investment made have been diminishing over that time.
Actually I don't think we've got anywhere near this sort of saturation
yet. Maybe in another 50 years, but who knows?
>In parallel with this, the numbers of vehicles and hence the potential for
>numbers of accidents have been increasing.
Yes, but we've had fairly steady growth i vehicles over the
improvement period too. And I was talking specifically of accident
RATES not absolute numbers.
>Combine the two and the number of accidents must start to level out (e.g. if
>accidents got down to zero, you cannot keep on a downward trend!).
The downwards trends was at 5% per annum on the "reducing balance".
And you could go on almost for ever.
>Accepting that zero accidents is impossible and vehicle km driven continues
>to increase, it wouldn't suprise me if accident numbers begin to increase
>(or have they already).
Deaths are up on the last full year. They may well be up again this
year. Speed kills kills.
>I am not saying your argument is completely wrong. I'm all for more human
>enforcement rather than mechanical (personal preference), but your use of
>back of the envelope statistics does not convince me.
The thing about loss of improvement rate is far from proof, yet at the
same time it is pretty good evidence that speed kills policy and
camera proliferation are not working to save lives in an environment
where engineering improvements continue unabated.
Paul Smith
<pet...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> I am interested in improving road safety,
[snip]
>Well then I stand corrected.
>Very commendable (not being sarcastic) but your own PR on this group gives
>the impression you're obsessed with speed limits and the methods adopted to
>enforce them.
I believe it's the single most important road safety issue.
>I previously made the following statement:
>> >Bleating on about the injustice of speed cameras isn't achieving anything
>> >whatever your opinion of them is.
>> >And if they save one life they may even be justified in their own right,
>> >especially if it was yours, or someone close to you.
>To which you replied:
>> Bollocks.
>Just when I thought you had something intelligent to say.......oh well.
"Just one life" is a pretty pathetic argument, not least since I
consider that speed cameras have already cost ~6,000.
Paul Smith
<alan.not...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> But it has been the government's spin in various "kill your speed or
>> >> kill a child" campaigns.
>> >Given that you accept that children do die from being struck by
>> >vehicles, can you at least accept that the cause of death in a
>> >collision between a child and a vehicle is due to absorption of
>> >some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle by the child, and
>> >furthermore that the kinetic energy of the vehicle, as for any other
>> >object, is proportional to the square of the speed?
>> Proportional to the speed AT IMPACT, yes.
>> >If so, I really don't see what problem you have with the fact that
>> >slower traffic speeds will save the lives of children. Indeed, this
>> >is the import of that review document of scientific research that you
>> >cite on your website.
>> Because these figures show VERY clearly that the speed at impact is
>> NOT proportional to the free travelling speed in 99.92% of cases.
>> So policies which reduce the speed at impact please, not policies
>> which alter free travelling speed and do not influence speed at
>> impact.
>> Hell, I can even show how reducing free travelling speed might well
>> INCREASE speed at impact. Let's not risk causing that PLEASE!
>so, lower speed means less reaction time???
Possibly on occasion, yes. See:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/dangers.html
--
Paul Smith
<alan.not...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Now let's get realistic.
>> =========================================================
>> Twice as many accidents are very minor and unreported.
>> Five times as many incidents are near misses and unreported.
>> 10 children were probably killed by drunks and joyriders.
>> 10 children were probably killed out of town.
>> 30 children were probably killed by vehicles not exceeding the speed
>> limit.
>>
>> So now we have:
>>
>> 109,928 (=15,704 + 15,704 + 5*15,704) incidents involving child
>> pedestrians.
>> 57 child pedestrians killed in town by drivers who exceed the speed
>> limit, and who were not drunks or criminals.
>>
>> 71,453 (=109,928*65%) vehicles in incidents with child pedestrians use
>> a free travelling speed of over 30mph.
>>
>> 57 were killed and we still have 71,396 left who were not killed in
>> incidents with vehicles that use a free travelling speed of over 30mph
>> in town.
>>
>> That's 99.92% who were not killed.
>> =========================================================
>Paul, what you're basically saying is that it's ok to kill 107 children a
>year so that you can speed?
Can't you read? No I'm saying that since 99.92% were not killed by
"speeding" It's highly likely that the other 0.08% were not killed by
speeding either, and we'd better start dealing with the real causes
quick.
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> >> But it has been the government's spin in various "kill your speed or
>> >> kill a child" campaigns.
>> >Given that you accept that children do die from being struck by
>> >vehicles, can you at least accept that the cause of death in a
>> >collision between a child and a vehicle is due to absorption of
>> >some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle by the child, and
>> >furthermore that the kinetic energy of the vehicle, as for any other
>> >object, is proportional to the square of the speed?
>> Proportional to the speed AT IMPACT, yes.
>And the speed at impact from a car driving at 70 mph will be greater
>than the speed at impact from a car driving at 30 mph, all other
>factors being equal. Can you at least concede that? Remember, I
>have already cited numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies showing a
>direct causal relationship between _driving_ speed and incidence of
>serious and fatal accidents.
It's not fair or reasonable to impose "all other factors being equal"
it leads to fallacious conclusions. All other factors are not equal,
or the 70mph driver wouldn't have chosen 70mph in the first place.
But if all other factors were equal, then yes. It's true.
>> >If so, I really don't see what problem you have with the fact that
>> >slower traffic speeds will save the lives of children. Indeed, this
>> >is the import of that review document of scientific research that you
>> >cite on your website.
>> Because these figures show VERY clearly that the speed at impact is
>> NOT proportional to the free travelling speed in 99.92% of cases.
>So you say. But I'm afraid that you're wrong. Your figures show
>nothing of the sort, nor could they show anything of the kind either
>way.
We know 71,000 and odd drivers use speeds in excess of 30mph in free
travelling conditions. We know that incidents with those 71,000
drivers resulted in 57 deaths, So we know FOR SURE that speeding
didn't result in deaths in 70,943 case. (ish)
>Look at your methodology. You take the 65% incidence of traffic
>traveling at more than 30mph in a 30 mph zone and then you multiply
>that by the number of pedestrian children injured in accidents. You
>then claim (I have absolutely no idea why) that the result of this
>calculation gives the number of pedestrian children killed in
>accidents by cars travelling at more than 30 mph. You then subtract
>the number of fatalities and claim that the remainder were all hit and
>not killed by cars travelling at over 30 mph. You appear to recognise
>that travel speed and collision speed are distinct, but still you go
>through this pantomime of pretending that they are the same for the
>purpose of calculating pedestrian mortality rates.
No I don't. Speed enforcement affects free travelling speeds. Driver
behaviour and pedestrian behaviour affect impact speeds. Free
travelling speeds bear no relationship to impact speeds in the real
world. These figures prove it.
So if we want improvements in death rates we are extremely unlikely to
get them from changing free travelling speeds.
>It's absolutely hopeless. If you were not so evidently sincere I'd
>suggest that it must be some kind of spoof!
You're not thinking it through. I reckon you're nearly there. Try
again. Please.
>But it gets even funnier. You arbitrarily decide that '10 children
>were probably killed by drunks and joyriders...' and a whole catechism
>of guesses, all of them in round number, all of them provided with
>absolutely no justification.
The first set of figures proved that 99% were not killed by
"speeding". Exact figures based on official figures.
Then I made sensible guesses based on what I know happens, just to
show the effect is extremely likely to be ten times more than the
degree that I can prove.
>> So policies which reduce the speed at impact please, not policies
>> which alter free travelling speed and do not influence speed at
>> impact.
>> Hell, I can even show how reducing free travelling speed might well
>> INCREASE speed at impact. Let's not risk causing that PLEASE!
>Trying to argue against road policies with really mindbogglingly
>stupid calculations written on the back of an envelope will not help
>you to convince either me or the Department for Transport that its
>current policies, which are based on the peer reviewed scientific
>literature and also happen to be showing a modest success, are wrong.
Peer reviewed scientific literature like TRL421 perhaps? Don't make me
laugh. They gave up and went political. I'm livid about it and making
a big noise. See:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl421.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/onethirdemail.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr100.html
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> > You might like to consider what speed the government would
>> >suggest the drivers had slowed to to achieve 0.1% fatalities.
>> The argument that 99.92% were not killed by speed does not imply that
>> the remaining 0.08% were killed by speeding. In fact, very much the
>> opposite.
> I'm not suggesting that they are, but wondering what speed
>you think they would have reduced to at the point of impact.
It would be so interesting and useful to know the impact speed
distribution curve. I could make a few guesses...
Average impact speed 2 mph.
Max impact speed 40mph or 50mph. (but only about 3 cases)
Average impact speed in fatals 15mph.
But it's just guesswork at this stage.
Sherilyn
> On 08 Dec 2002 16:24:58 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> But it has been the government's spin in various "kill your speed or
> >> >> kill a child" campaigns.
>
> >> >Given that you accept that children do die from being struck by
> >> >vehicles, can you at least accept that the cause of death in a
> >> >collision between a child and a vehicle is due to absorption of
> >> >some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle by the child, and
> >> >furthermore that the kinetic energy of the vehicle, as for any other
> >> >object, is proportional to the square of the speed?
>
> >> Proportional to the speed AT IMPACT, yes.
>
> >And the speed at impact from a car driving at 70 mph will be greater
> >than the speed at impact from a car driving at 30 mph, all other
> >factors being equal. Can you at least concede that? Remember, I
> >have already cited numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies showing a
> >direct causal relationship between _driving_ speed and incidence of
> >serious and fatal accidents.
>
> It's not fair or reasonable to impose "all other factors being equal"
> it leads to fallacious conclusions. All other factors are not equal,
> or the 70mph driver wouldn't have chosen 70mph in the first place.
Okay, I think you're got the wrong end of the stick, here. I just
want to check that you and I agree on the operation of Newton's laws
of motion.
>
> But if all other factors were equal, then yes. It's true.
>
> >> >If so, I really don't see what problem you have with the fact that
> >> >slower traffic speeds will save the lives of children. Indeed, this
> >> >is the import of that review document of scientific research that you
> >> >cite on your website.
>
> >> Because these figures show VERY clearly that the speed at impact is
> >> NOT proportional to the free travelling speed in 99.92% of cases.
>
> >So you say. But I'm afraid that you're wrong. Your figures show
> >nothing of the sort, nor could they show anything of the kind either
> >way.
>
> We know 71,000 and odd drivers use speeds in excess of 30mph in free
> travelling conditions.
You made this figure up. Since you yourself state that 65% of drivers exceed
the speed limit, then the number is much bigger because the driving
population is much bigger than that.
> We know that incidents with those 71,000
> drivers resulted in 57 deaths,
No we do not know anything of the sort. We do know that 110 deaths of
infant pedestrians occurred and 15 704 child pedestrians were injured
but not killed. We do not know at what speed the drivers involved in
_any_ of those collisions were travelling. They could all have been
doing 5mph and happened to run over a child's skull, or they could all
have been doing 40 mph at the time of collision, or any other
permutation. The point is that we don't know. You make a highly
suspect back-of-envelope calculation that implicitly assumes that
collisions with child pedestrians is as likely to occur at any speed.
It isn't.
> So we know FOR SURE that speeding didn't result in deaths in 70,943
> case. (ish)
Please, Paul, leave these statistical calculations to the
statisticians. You don't know enough to realise how badly you're
doing here.
>
> >Look at your methodology. You take the 65% incidence of traffic
> >traveling at more than 30mph in a 30 mph zone and then you multiply
> >that by the number of pedestrian children injured in accidents. You
> >then claim (I have absolutely no idea why) that the result of this
> >calculation gives the number of pedestrian children killed in
> >accidents by cars travelling at more than 30 mph. You then subtract
> >the number of fatalities and claim that the remainder were all hit and
> >not killed by cars travelling at over 30 mph. You appear to recognise
> >that travel speed and collision speed are distinct, but still you go
> >through this pantomime of pretending that they are the same for the
> >purpose of calculating pedestrian mortality rates.
>
> No I don't. Speed enforcement affects free travelling speeds. Driver
> behaviour and pedestrian behaviour affect impact speeds. Free
> travelling speeds bear no relationship to impact speeds in the real
> world. These figures prove it.
[sigh]
Have you tried sending your calculations to a road safety engineer?
Preferably one with a lot more patience than me. Your arithmetic is
too stupid for words.
--
Sherilyn
Paul Smith
wrote:
>Paul Smith <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> writes:
>> >Look at your methodology. You take the 65% incidence of traffic
>> >traveling at more than 30mph in a 30 mph zone and then you multiply
>> >that by the number of pedestrian children injured in accidents. You
>> >then claim (I have absolutely no idea why) that the result of this
>> >calculation gives the number of pedestrian children killed in
>> >accidents by cars travelling at more than 30 mph. You then subtract
>> >the number of fatalities and claim that the remainder were all hit and
>> >not killed by cars travelling at over 30 mph. You appear to recognise
>> >that travel speed and collision speed are distinct, but still you go
>> >through this pantomime of pretending that they are the same for the
>> >purpose of calculating pedestrian mortality rates.
>> No I don't. Speed enforcement affects free travelling speeds. Driver
>> behaviour and pedestrian behaviour affect impact speeds. Free
>> travelling speeds bear no relationship to impact speeds in the real
>> world. These figures prove it.
>Have you tried sending your calculations to a road safety engineer?
>Preferably one with a lot more patience than me. Your arithmetic is
>too stupid for words.
Thank you very much.
If you don't like the second set of best guess figures, then use the
first set of official figures. It still gives 99%.
Sherilyn
The figure for the number of child fatalities in collisions with
children by speeders could be 0% or it could be 100%. I'm not seriously
suggesting that it is either, just that there's something wrong if you
believe you can calculate it from your given data. That is why I say
it is too stupid for words.
--
Sherilyn
Richard Burton
> children by speeders could be 0% or it could be 100%. I'm not seriously
> suggesting that it is either, just that there's something wrong if you
> believe you can calculate it from your given data. That is why I say
> it is too stupid for words.
> --
> Sherilyn
Sherilyn, you have hit the nail on the head: too stupid for words - logical
to Mr Smith
Rich
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> If you don't like the second set of best guess figures, then use the
>> first set of official figures. It still gives 99%.
>The figure for the number of child fatalities in collisions with
>children by speeders could be 0% or it could be 100%. I'm not seriously
>suggesting that it is either, just that there's something wrong if you
>believe you can calculate it from your given data. That is why I say
>it is too stupid for words.
Of course, your statement might have some credibility if you could
point out a specific flaw.
Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
Paul Smith
<burtt...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
What an absolute twerp you are! I can see why you're kill filed all
over again. Anyway, someone kindly sent me your post by email, so I've
downloaded at and now I'm replying.
>> Logical proof:
>for those of you who are not familiar with Mr Smith, logic and proof are not
>his strong points.
Then you'll have no difficulty in pointing out very specifically
what's wrong will you?
>> =========================================================
>> 15,704 child pedestrians injured in accidents.
>> 107 child pedestrians killed.
>> 65% of traffic in 30mph zones free travels at over 30mph.
>> Therefore
>> 10,207 (15,704*65%) vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a
>> free travelling speed of more than 30mph.
>> Even assuming that all the child pedestrians were killed by drivers
>> who free travel at over 30mph, we still have 10,100 (=10,207-107) left
>> who were NOT killed by vehicles that have a free travelling speed of
>> over 30mph.
>> That's 99% who were NOT killed.
>Lies, damned lies, and Paul Smith's statistics. This is possibly the worst
>misuse of statistical analysis since Harold Wilson told us the pound in our
>pocket was just the same after he devalued.
You think it's wrong, then you tell us how and why. Otherwise everyone
will know for sure that you're just spouting garbage and prejudice.
[snip]
>> Somebody tell me I'm dreaming.
>Yes Paul, you're dreaming - your dreaming that you are a logical, rational
>human being. Do us all a favour and wake up before you drive anything.
Go then prove me wrong. I'll give you 24 hours before I reinstate your
well deserved kill file entry. I'm waiting.
Tosspot
>
>
>>I am interested in improving road safety,
>
>
> safety?
> Bleating on about the injustice of speed cameras isn't achieving anything
> whatever your opinion of them is.
> And if they save one life they may even be justified in their own right,
> especially if it was yours, or someone close to you.
He is the AntiDuhg. Be afraid, be very afraid.
--
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax
si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
W K
> But go back to the original post. 99.92% of driver who drive at over
> 30mph failed to kill child pedestrians, when we know that 50% die in
> 30mph impacts. I'd say that breaks the "obvious" link between free
> travel speeds and pedestrian impact speeds on UK roads. i.e. in the
> real world.
The straw man you present only if drivers never ever slow down or brake if
they see a child near or on the road.
What % of accidents where a car hits a child happen in such circumstances
that the driver does not even touch the brakes before hitting the child?
[and I really think we're back to like-for-like comparisons - ie a more
subtle "motorways are safer than high streets" thing]]
Also - do you think drivers are sensible enough to go slower than average in
circumstances where there are more likely to be kids around and faster
elsewhere?
If this is the case (ie that drivers are not all idiots) you said >>>>>
"Therefore
10,207 (15,704*65%) vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a
free travelling speed of more than 30mph." <<<<<<<
This isn't a fair assumption.
W K
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 22:22:39 -0000, "PeterE"
> <pe...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>nope, built up means narrow streets, house both sides, cars parked both
> >>sides and fuck wits doing 50 mph, just like mr smith keeps telling us
don't
> >>kill...
>
> >Agreed - anyone doing 50 mph or even 40 mph in such circumstances is a
> >fuckwit and deserves to be prosecuted. As I suspect Mr Smith would agree.
>
> Yep. Absolutely.
And what about an advertising campaign whose most visible TV advert was to
tell people its better not to do 40, giving such circumstances as the
example? (parked up street with shops etc.)
W K
Ade V <javi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.185d419e6ea74cf8989c64@slave...
> Sherilyn wrote in uk.transport:
> > Speed really does kill.
>
> Ah, the old mantra. Speed does *not* kill. If it did, our motorways
> would be death zones. So would dual carriageways, long straight A-roads,
> etc.
Ah the other old mantra.
There is an element of truth in "speed kills" that is only wriggled out of
by not comparing like with like.
[a) faster = more likely that incident turns to accident b) accidents more
serious]
BTW if more people did 100 mph on current motorways, and more people did 80
on A roads, what do you think would happen?
W K
> Why is that an odd assumption? WK is advocating a particular measure on
the
> grounds that it may save at least one life, regardless of what other
> side-effects it might have.
Who ... me? No way, I've never said anything like that.
Certainly not in this thread, and probably misinterpreted/not written
clearly by me if you think you've seen it elsewhere.
Sherilyn
> On 09 Dec 2002 00:16:58 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >> If you don't like the second set of best guess figures, then use the
> >> first set of official figures. It still gives 99%.
>
> >The figure for the number of child fatalities in collisions with
> >children by speeders could be 0% or it could be 100%. I'm not seriously
> >suggesting that it is either, just that there's something wrong if you
> >believe you can calculate it from your given data. That is why I say
> >it is too stupid for words.
>
> Of course, your statement might have some credibility if you could
> point out a specific flaw.
I have pointed out the flaw several times. You cannot calculate the
number of child pedestrian fatalities from speeding from the data you
have cited. Your calculations are bogus.
>
> Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
Check it out. What makes you think that your arithmetic is correct?
How do you justify it?
--
Sherilyn
Raymond Keattch
> >
> > >I don't think there's any need to 'account for' the fact that people
> > >in car accidents were not all killed. Rejoice, perhaps. But since
> > >you have already stated that you believe the government lethality
> > >figures it follows that you know that the reason for the low lethality
> > >here is deceleration in the vicinity of pedestrians and prior to
> > >collision.
> >
> > Yes! And those behaviours are our saviours!
>
> Exactly, so we need to make sure that the driver is in a position to
> shrug off that kinetic energy easily. Keep his speed low.
>
We all know the slower the car is going the less the impact will be but that
is not the issue here. Pauls figures show that speed by itself is not
killing these pedestrians. We need to find and focus on the reasons why
pedestrians and cars are coming into contact.
Don't keep focusing on the fact that a hard car hitting a soft body will
kill the body. Everyone knows this. Don't keep blindly focusing on a cars
speed as the reason - Pauls figues make interesting reading and seem to
suggest focusing on speed is a waste of effort. Something else is causing
pedestrians and cars to come into contact with one another.
You are suggesting slowing down cars to lessen the impact and not finding
the cause of the collision.
Paul is suggesting looking at the reasons why the two are coming into
contact in the first place.
Pauls direction is more constructive and will be more productive in the long
run. Your direction will not help avoid accident but will only help slow
down traffic, upset loads of people and not get rid of the underlying cause.
RayK
Raymond Keattch
> Paul Smith <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> writes:
<snip>
>
> Claiming that you want all drivers to drive like those involved in
> accidents that happen to be non-fatal doesn't make a lot of sense, I'm
> afraid. I'd rather concentrate on eliminating all accidents and
> reducing their severity by continuing to enforce speed limits.
>
There you go again, you want to lessen the impact but not concentrate on the
reasons! You seem to be in the mindset that accidents will always happen so
lets slow everybody down to lessen the impact. Wouldn't it be better to find
out the real resons why the collisions are happening in the first place?
RayK
W K
Raymond Keattch <ray...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:5c_I9.2916$9R.10...@newsr2.u-net.net...
>Pauls figures show that speed by itself is not
> killing these pedestrians.
No they don't. They show very little.
Its a very coarse grained approach to see all 30 mph zones as being the
same.
> Pauls direction is more constructive and will be more productive in the
long
> run.
No, he's trying to prove his point, and going about it in a rather
subjective manner.
Raymond Keattch
> vehicles, can you at least accept that the cause of death in a
> collision between a child and a vehicle is due to absorption of
> some of the kinetic energy of the vehicle by the child, and
> furthermore that the kinetic energy of the vehicle, as for any other
> object, is proportional to the square of the speed?
>
more productive to find out why pedestrians keep doing this, I would have
thought.
RayK
Raymond Keattch
> NM <nik.m...@chello.nl> writes:
>
<snip>
>
> > More effort should be made to keep children away from vehicles (moving
> > at any speed) but if they are going to play in the traffic then get it
> > over quickly.
>
> We can't keep the vehicles away from the children, they're everywhere,
> on every street. To keep contact between children and fast vehicles
> to a minimum, it is necessary to have vehicles reduce their speed in
> the urban environment.
>
> Which is of course what we do now.
> --
Correct. Most drivers do drive sensible around urban areas. The speed of the
vehicle is the last thing thats going to kill a pedestrian. Drivers lighting
cigarettes, changing CD,s, looking at the scenery, chatting to passengers,
Pedestrians stepping into the road without looking, pedestrians more
interested in the music blaring through headphones, pedestrians on the
mobile phone are the primary reasons why they are coming into contact with
cars.
Concentrate on that rather than slowing everything to a crawl to lessen any
impact.
I drove through a village with a main street about a mile long with speed
humps along the whole stretch. I couldn't do any more than 15 mph because of
the bumps. The site lines on that road were easily good enough for 40mph by
an alert driver.
RayK
Paul Smith
>>Pauls figures show that speed by itself is not
>> killing these pedestrians.
>No they don't. They show very little.
>Its a very coarse grained approach to see all 30 mph zones as being the
>same.
But that's precisely one of the problems. The 30mph limit sees the
30mph limit zones as being similar. This is the exact reason that
speed limits and speed enforcement are not the solution. Drivers
slowing when necessary is the solution, and it's working. We just need
more of it.
>> Pauls direction is more constructive and will be more productive in the
>> long run.
>No, he's trying to prove his point, and going about it in a rather
>subjective manner.
There are no subjective figures. Find a flaw and I'll fix it or
withdraw the whole idea. I can't find a flaw, and neither has anyone
else.
Paul Smith
>> But go back to the original post. 99.92% of driver who drive at over
>> 30mph failed to kill child pedestrians, when we know that 50% die in
>> 30mph impacts. I'd say that breaks the "obvious" link between free
>> travel speeds and pedestrian impact speeds on UK roads. i.e. in the
>> real world.
>The straw man you present only if drivers never ever slow down or brake if
>they see a child near or on the road.
>What % of accidents where a car hits a child happen in such circumstances
>that the driver does not even touch the brakes before hitting the child?
>[and I really think we're back to like-for-like comparisons - ie a more
>subtle "motorways are safer than high streets" thing]]
In very few circumstances does an impact occur without braking.
>Also - do you think drivers are sensible enough to go slower than average in
>circumstances where there are more likely to be kids around and faster
>elsewhere?
Yes. Do you think speed enforcement does this? This is where drivers'
safe control of speed works to save lives and excessive enforcement
doesn't. The implication that drivers are using safe speed techniques
is extremely strong. This is exactly why I'm on about it. Less dumb
speed enforcement and more safety by safe speeds please.
>If this is the case (ie that drivers are not all idiots) you said >>>>>
>"Therefore
>10,207 (15,704*65%) vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a
>free travelling speed of more than 30mph." <<<<<<<
>This isn't a fair assumption.
Yes it is. Like I said to every other doubter, find a flaw.
Paul Smith
<Frank...@yahoo.tits.com> wrote:
>>>I am interested in improving road safety,
>> So what the heck are you actually doing in a practical manner to improve
>> safety?
>> Bleating on about the injustice of speed cameras isn't achieving anything
>> whatever your opinion of them is.
>> And if they save one life they may even be justified in their own right,
>> especially if it was yours, or someone close to you.
>He is the AntiDuhg. Be afraid, be very afraid.
ROTFL!
Paul Smith
>> >>nope, built up means narrow streets, house both sides, cars parked both
>> >>sides and fuck wits doing 50 mph, just like mr smith keeps telling us
>> >>don't kill...
>> >Agreed - anyone doing 50 mph or even 40 mph in such circumstances is a
>> >fuckwit and deserves to be prosecuted. As I suspect Mr Smith would agree.
>> Yep. Absolutely.
>And what about an advertising campaign whose most visible TV advert was to
>tell people its better not to do 40, giving such circumstances as the
>example? (parked up street with shops etc.)
It didn't say "slow down where there's danger". It said "stick to 30
and save a life" (or equivalent) which is utter garbage as these
figures show.
W K
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 10:28:16 -0000, "W K" <bill...@wire2.com> wrote:
>
> >>Pauls figures show that speed by itself is not
> >> killing these pedestrians.
>
> >No they don't. They show very little.
> >Its a very coarse grained approach to see all 30 mph zones as being the
> >same.
>
> But that's precisely one of the problems. The 30mph limit sees the
> 30mph limit zones as being similar. This is the exact reason that
> speed limits and speed enforcement are not the solution. Drivers
> slowing when necessary is the solution, and it's working. We just need
> more of it.
??? I am talking about the basis of your analysis.
You are extrapolating the 65% and 30 mph to every single case - you cannot
do that sensibly - too coarse grained.
> >> Pauls direction is more constructive and will be more productive in the
> >> long run.
>
> >No, he's trying to prove his point, and going about it in a rather
> >subjective manner.
>
> There are no subjective figures. Find a flaw and I'll fix it or
> withdraw the whole idea. I can't find a flaw, and neither has anyone
> else.
You are assuming that car drivers do not slow down where there are
pedestrians esp. children.
The figures are not subjective, its the analysis.
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> >> If you don't like the second set of best guess figures, then use the
>> >> first set of official figures. It still gives 99%.
>> >The figure for the number of child fatalities in collisions with
>> >children by speeders could be 0% or it could be 100%. I'm not seriously
>> >suggesting that it is either, just that there's something wrong if you
>> >believe you can calculate it from your given data. That is why I say
>> >it is too stupid for words.
>> Of course, your statement might have some credibility if you could
>> point out a specific flaw.
>I have pointed out the flaw several times. You cannot calculate the
>number of child pedestrian fatalities from speeding from the data you
>have cited.
Of course I can. I have. You'll have to be a lot more specific. I'll
help you: Tell me ONE reason WHY I cannot make the calculation.
> Your calculations are bogus.
Ahh, you're getting technical now.
>> Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
>Check it out. What makes you think that your arithmetic is correct?
>How do you justify it?
It's all there. Find the flaw or give up.
W K
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:21:59 -0000, "W K" <bill...@wire2.com> wrote:
>
> >> But go back to the original post. 99.92% of driver who drive at over
> >> 30mph failed to kill child pedestrians, when we know that 50% die in
> >> 30mph impacts. I'd say that breaks the "obvious" link between free
> >> travel speeds and pedestrian impact speeds on UK roads. i.e. in the
> >> real world.
>
> >The straw man you present only if drivers never ever slow down or brake
if
> >they see a child near or on the road.
> >What % of accidents where a car hits a child happen in such circumstances
> >that the driver does not even touch the brakes before hitting the child?
> >[and I really think we're back to like-for-like comparisons - ie a more
> >subtle "motorways are safer than high streets" thing]]
>
> In very few circumstances does an impact occur without braking.
The two sentences that start this post - you have linked them together.
Perhaps 99.2% of drivers doing 35 mph hit kids at less than 20 mph after
they braked.
If more of them were doing 40 or 45 mph - do you think that would change?
Does this "break the obvious link".
> >Also - do you think drivers are sensible enough to go slower than average
in
> >circumstances where there are more likely to be kids around and faster
> >elsewhere?
>
> Yes.
####
>Do you think speed enforcement does this? This is where drivers'
> safe control of speed works to save lives and excessive enforcement
> doesn't. The implication that drivers are using safe speed techniques
> is extremely strong. This is exactly why I'm on about it. Less dumb
> speed enforcement and more safety by safe speeds please.
### same old stuff.
You are hopping wildly between subjects here.
People will go more slowly in higher risk situations. So your 65% over 30
mph not killing kids is an average that does not represent or even attempt
to represent this reality.
> >If this is the case (ie that drivers are not all idiots) you said >>>>>
> >"Therefore
>
> >10,207 (15,704*65%) vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a
> >free travelling speed of more than 30mph." <<<<<<<
>
> >This isn't a fair assumption.
>
> Yes it is. Like I said to every other doubter, find a flaw.
The above.
There will be a tendancy for cars in riskier situations to go slower.
You cannot lump all 30 mph roads into one pot to make a claim about what
speed all those accidents happened at.
The main factor is how much over their safe speed they were going.
ie at 40 mph when you'd be able to slow down to 10 mph before hitting
something has precisely the same effect as doing 30 mph where you have
enough speed to slow down to 10 mph.
Your coarse grained approach seems to assume that all 30 mph roads have the
same conditions and people doing the same speed.
You are doing precisely what you whinge about the speed limit doing.
W K
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:39:18 -0000, "W K" <bill...@wire2.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>nope, built up means narrow streets, house both sides, cars parked
both
> >> >>sides and fuck wits doing 50 mph, just like mr smith keeps telling us
> >> >>don't kill...
>
> >> >Agreed - anyone doing 50 mph or even 40 mph in such circumstances is a
> >> >fuckwit and deserves to be prosecuted. As I suspect Mr Smith would
agree.
>
> >> Yep. Absolutely.
>
> >And what about an advertising campaign whose most visible TV advert was
to
> >tell people its better not to do 40, giving such circumstances as the
> >example? (parked up street with shops etc.)
>
> It didn't say "slow down where there's danger". It said "stick to 30
> and save a life" (or equivalent)
I think you haven't a clue what they did actually say, it was more sensible
than what your select memory retains.
>which is utter garbage as these
> figures show.
So you have figures that relate to streets with lots of cars parked on
either side.
Raymond Keattch
"Alan Crocker" <alan.not...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:at0has$3kb$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> Paul, what you're basically saying is that it's ok to kill 107 children a
> year so that you can speed?
>
Oh come on!
He clearly thinks that something other than speeding is causing the majority
of these deaths. Agree with his figues or not but at least he is looking for
causes and not just blindly blaming speed.
I just had a great idea to save pedestrians lives. Lets impose a speed limit
on them! If the average walking speed of a pedestrian is 3 mph, lets impose
a limit of 1.5mph on them when they are within 6ft of a road.
Who thinks this will reduce pedestrian deaths for a start.
Who thinks it would be unreasonable to slow EVERY pedestrian down as a
reason to save the lives of a few?
Who thinks a far better approach would be to educate the pedestrians more?
RayK
Paul Smith
>> >>Pauls figures show that speed by itself is not
>> >> killing these pedestrians.
>> >No they don't. They show very little.
>> >Its a very coarse grained approach to see all 30 mph zones as being the
>> >same.
>> But that's precisely one of the problems. The 30mph limit sees the
>> 30mph limit zones as being similar. This is the exact reason that
>> speed limits and speed enforcement are not the solution. Drivers
>> slowing when necessary is the solution, and it's working. We just need
>> more of it.
>??? I am talking about the basis of your analysis.
>You are extrapolating the 65% and 30 mph to every single case - you cannot
>do that sensibly - too coarse grained.
Those are official figures from the Government's Vehicle Speeds in
Great Britain 2001 (VSGB).
Of course there's room for error, but can you imagine that the scope
for automated speed enforcement would apply to the sorts of roads NOT
covered by VSGB? And to determine the usefulness of speed enforcement
is the ONLY purpose to my figures.
So allow for a massive error, call it 40% and get 98%. This changes
nothing.
But be very very sure that VSGB type roads are exactly the roads where
cameras might pop up.
>> >> Pauls direction is more constructive and will be more productive in the
>> >> long run.
>> >No, he's trying to prove his point, and going about it in a rather
>> >subjective manner.
>> There are no subjective figures. Find a flaw and I'll fix it or
>> withdraw the whole idea. I can't find a flaw, and neither has anyone
>> else.
>You are assuming that car drivers do not slow down where there are
>pedestrians esp. children.
It's not me doing that... It's the speed kills liars.
>The figures are not subjective, its the analysis.
Oh come on. You can try harder than that. Three simple calculations
are subjective? Like 2+2=4 is subjective I suppose...
Paul Smith
>
>Paul Smith <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:45v8vuc5fgsfb68cf...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 09:39:18 -0000, "W K" <bill...@wire2.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>nope, built up means narrow streets, house both sides, cars parked
>both
>> >> >>sides and fuck wits doing 50 mph, just like mr smith keeps telling us
>> >> >>don't kill...
>>
>> >> >Agreed - anyone doing 50 mph or even 40 mph in such circumstances is a
>> >> >fuckwit and deserves to be prosecuted. As I suspect Mr Smith would
>agree.
>>
>> >> Yep. Absolutely.
>>
>> >And what about an advertising campaign whose most visible TV advert was
>to
>> >tell people its better not to do 40, giving such circumstances as the
>> >example? (parked up street with shops etc.)
>>
>> It didn't say "slow down where there's danger". It said "stick to 30
>> and save a life" (or equivalent)
>
>I think you haven't a clue what they did actually say, it was more sensible
>than what your select memory retains.
Words on screen: "At just 5mph over the 30mph limit it takes a further
21 feet to stop"
Voice over: "Think: slow down"
And this after video of a child getting hit.
>>which is utter garbage as these
>> figures show.
>So you have figures that relate to streets with lots of cars parked on
>either side.
No. But they will never get cameras will they? Not enough speeders...
W K
> >You are assuming that car drivers do not slow down where there are
> >pedestrians esp. children.
>
> It's not me doing that... It's the speed kills liars.
Yes it is you doing that. You make that assumption for your calcs.
I've re-read the starting point and basically you are saying that there
aren't enough kids being killed to justify being tighter on speed limits.
Or that the 1% killed in accidents indicates anything more than that some
collisions are worse than others. After all kid A runs out into the street.
They do it .1 seconds earlier and the car stops. 0.1 second later they get
hit at 20 mph etc.etc.
Paul Smith
>> >> But go back to the original post. 99.92% of driver who drive at over
>> >> 30mph failed to kill child pedestrians, when we know that 50% die in
>> >> 30mph impacts. I'd say that breaks the "obvious" link between free
>> >> travel speeds and pedestrian impact speeds on UK roads. i.e. in the
>> >> real world.
>> >The straw man you present only if drivers never ever slow down or brake
>> >if they see a child near or on the road.
>> >What % of accidents where a car hits a child happen in such circumstances
>> >that the driver does not even touch the brakes before hitting the child?
>> >[and I really think we're back to like-for-like comparisons - ie a more
>> >subtle "motorways are safer than high streets" thing]]
>> In very few circumstances does an impact occur without braking.
>The two sentences that start this post - you have linked them together.
>Perhaps 99.2% of drivers doing 35 mph hit kids at less than 20 mph after
>they braked.
>If more of them were doing 40 or 45 mph - do you think that would change?
>Does this "break the obvious link".
If more of them were irresponsible enough to choose the higher speed
where it wasn't safe to do so, then yes. But on UK roads, then no.
Obviously it's only useful to consider what's likely to happen on our
roads.
>> >Also - do you think drivers are sensible enough to go slower than average
>> >in
>> >circumstances where there are more likely to be kids around and faster
>> >elsewhere?
>> Yes.
>####
>>Do you think speed enforcement does this? This is where drivers'
>> safe control of speed works to save lives and excessive enforcement
>> doesn't. The implication that drivers are using safe speed techniques
>> is extremely strong. This is exactly why I'm on about it. Less dumb
>> speed enforcement and more safety by safe speeds please.
>### same old stuff.
>You are hopping wildly between subjects here.
>People will go more slowly in higher risk situations. So your 65% over 30
>mph not killing kids is an average that does not represent or even attempt
>to represent this reality.
It's not me that attempts to represent it as reality. It's the camera
installers and promoters.
>> >If this is the case (ie that drivers are not all idiots) you said >>>>>
>> >"Therefore
>>
>> >10,207 (15,704*65%) vehicles in accidents with child pedestrians use a
>> >free travelling speed of more than 30mph." <<<<<<<
>>
>> >This isn't a fair assumption.
>>
>> Yes it is. Like I said to every other doubter, find a flaw.
>
>The above.
Nope. That's their flaw.
>There will be a tendancy for cars in riskier situations to go slower.
>You cannot lump all 30 mph roads into one pot to make a claim about what
>speed all those accidents happened at.
Good. That's safe speed working.
>The main factor is how much over their safe speed they were going.
>ie at 40 mph when you'd be able to slow down to 10 mph before hitting
>something has precisely the same effect as doing 30 mph where you have
>enough speed to slow down to 10 mph.
Yes. So we need to emphasise the need for realistic safe speeds. My
point exactly. Thanks.
>Your coarse grained approach seems to assume that all 30 mph roads have the
>same conditions and people doing the same speed.
>You are doing precisely what you whinge about the speed limit doing.
Nope. It's them doing that, and I'm proving them wrong.
W K
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:34:04 -0000, "W K"
> >I think you haven't a clue what they did actually say, it was more
sensible
> >than what your select memory retains.
>
> Words on screen: "At just 5mph over the 30mph limit it takes a further
> 21 feet to stop"
>
> Voice over: "Think: slow down"
>
> And this after video of a child getting hit.
That could be re-interpereted as telling drivers to think about what the
stopping distance and hence your favourite "safe speed" actually is?
Is there anything in those words that you actually disagree with.
If you do think, and there is the conclusion that in some circumstances it
might be useful to be going very slightly slower - why wouldn't you?
Raymond Keattch
> nope, built up means narrow streets, house both sides, cars parked both
> sides and fuck wits doing 50 mph, just like mr smith keeps telling us
don't
> kill...
>
RayK
W K
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:32:23 -0000, "W K"
> If more of them were irresponsible enough to choose the higher speed
> where it wasn't safe to do so, then yes. But on UK roads, then no.
Here's the thing that this batch of figures goes no way to prove or
disprove.
In the uk drivers do go more or less at sensible speeds. This doesn't mean
there would be no benefit in forcing them to go slower ... thats hard to
tell.
Another thing thats hard to tell is whether drivers would go faster and in
to a more unreasonable speed if there was not the kind of detection you hate
so much. Certainly possible, and was the case for the first GATSO sites.
> >You are hopping wildly between subjects here.
> >People will go more slowly in higher risk situations. So your 65% over 30
> >mph not killing kids is an average that does not represent or even
attempt
> >to represent this reality.
>
> It's not me that attempts to represent it as reality. It's the camera
> installers and promoters.
<...>
> Nope. That's their flaw.
<...>
You are using the same assumption in YOUR theory, therefore its now a flaw
in your theory.
> >Your coarse grained approach seems to assume that all 30 mph roads have
the
> >same conditions and people doing the same speed.
> >You are doing precisely what you whinge about the speed limit doing.
>
> Nope. It's them doing that, and I'm proving them wrong.
Well in that case you have also proved that the subject of this thread is
wrong. As it relies on the same assumption.
Paul Smith
>> >You are assuming that car drivers do not slow down where there are
>> >pedestrians esp. children.
>> It's not me doing that... It's the speed kills liars.
>Yes it is you doing that. You make that assumption for your calcs.
You - sort of - have a point, and I'll clarify it.
Speed enforcement potentially alters free travelling speed. It does
not, cannot and will not alter the sorts of speeds that divers use in
areas of danger and before impact.
Since speed enforcement is the target of my claims it is completely
correct to build in the same assumptions that they do about altering
free travelling speeds.
I know full well that it's impact speed that matters, but the figures
show clearly that impact speed is unrelated to free travelling speed.
QED.
>I've re-read the starting point and basically you are saying that there
>aren't enough kids being killed to justify being tighter on speed limits.
>Or that the 1% killed in accidents indicates anything more than that some
>collisions are worse than others. After all kid A runs out into the street.
>They do it .1 seconds earlier and the car stops. 0.1 second later they get
>hit at 20 mph etc.etc.
No. I'm saying that real world driver behaviour saves lives and if we
want to save more then driver behaviour is the place to look. I always
knew this, but the figures demonstrate it very clearly.
Sherilyn
"Raymond Keattch" <ray...@btinternet.com> writes:
[Below appears to be Sherilyn/Paul/Sherilyn]
> <snip>
> > >
> > > >I don't think there's any need to 'account for' the fact that
> > > >people in car accidents were not all killed. Rejoice, perhaps.
> > > >But since you have already stated that you believe the
> > > >government lethality figures it follows that you know that the
> > > >reason for the low lethality here is deceleration in the
> > > >vicinity of pedestrians and prior to collision.
> > >
> > > Yes! And those behaviours are our saviours!
> >
> > Exactly, so we need to make sure that the driver is in a position
> > to shrug off that kinetic energy easily. Keep his speed low.
> >
>
> We all know the slower the car is going the less the impact will be
> but that is not the issue here.
Hmm, actually it is. Lethal and high injury collisions tend to occur
at higher speeds of impact, and both speed of impact and frequency of
collision are functions of traffic speed. This intuitively obvious
fact is backed up by many studies, including Taylor et al (2000),
which found that on urban roads each 1 mph reduction of mean speed on
urban roads with low overall speeds (where pedestrian casualties are
highest) results in a drop in collision rate of 6%, and that the
greatest reduction in collision rate is achieved by reducing the speed
of the faster drivers. If the proportion of speeders doubles,
collisions rise by 10%.
Other studies have found that if an individual drives at more than
10-15% above the average speed of traffic around him, his likelihood
of being involved in an accident is significantly above the mean.
Stradling et all (1999) found from a survey of 8000 car drivers in
England that one in three drivers with speeding penalties in the last
three years had been involved in an accident as a driver during the
same period. A driver travelling at speed has less time to notice a
pedestrian, has less braking time available, and takes longer to
brake. The kinetic energy of a moving object is proportional to the
square of its velocity.
> Pauls figures show that speed by itself is not
> killing these pedestrians. We need to find and focus on the reasons why
> pedestrians and cars are coming into contact.
With respect, Paul's figures are completely indefensible. This is a
description of what he does:
1. Calculation of the number of child pedestrians hit by drivers
whose 'free travel speed' prior collision was more than 30mph.
What he does.
He takes the number of child pedestrians hit in motor
collisions and multiplies it by the DfT figure for the
proportion of drivers who drive at over 30 mph in 30 mph
zones.
What he claims.
He claims that this gives the proportion of vehicles involved
in accidents with child pedestrians that were driving at above
30 mph (presumably at some point prior to the collision, but
not at the moment of collision).
Why this is incorrect.
He does not have any figures for the driving speed of the
drivers involved in the collisions with child pedestrians, and
multiplying the number of collisions by the proportion of
those driving at over 30mph in a 30mph zone cannot give that
figure. *All* collisions with pedestrians could be with
drivers who drove significantly higher than 30mph, or *no*
collisions with pedestrians could be with drivers who drove
significantly higher than 30mph--I don't claim that either of
these figures is true, but if it was the figures that Paul
cites could not tell us.
The travelling speed of those drivers who collided with
pedestrians is not knowable from the figures.
Paul is guessing.
Making a guess is okay, but Paul doesn't appear to recognise
that it _is_ a guess. He says "10,207 (15,704*65%) vehicles
in accidents with child pedestrians use a free travelling
speed of more than 30mph." He should say: "I estimate
that..."
2. Argument.
Paul takes the number of child pedestrians killed in crashes (107)
and divides into his estimated figure for the number of those involved
in accidents by vehicles that had a 'free travel speed' above 30 mph
(see above). 99% were not killed. At this point one would expect him
to just say "look, nearly all kids hit by cars aren't killed!" Which I
suppose might be surprising to somebody who mistakes collision speed
for travel speed. But Paul can't leave it there.
What he does next is kind of amusing.
He makes some more guesses for the number of accidents that were too
minor to report, and the number of near misses. Okay, there's nothing
wrong with that, although he should make it plain that he's just
guessing.
The next guesses are quite extraordinary, really. I quote directly.
10 children were probably killed by drunks and joyriders. 10
children were probably killed out of town. 30 children were
probably killed by vehicles not exceeding the speed limit.
Paul gives no basis for these guesses. It gets better. Again I quote
directly.
So now we have:
109,928 (=15,704 + 15,704 + 5*15,704) incidents involving
child pedestrians.
See what he just did? He took the DfT figure and multiplied it by
seven!
Why did he do this? Because he _guesses_ that child pedestrians are
involved in as many non-serious accidents that are not reported, and
that there are five times as many near misses as reportable accidents.
Why? Because Paul says so!
He goes on. Again I quote directly:
57 child pedestrians killed in town by drivers who exceed the
speed limit, and who were not drunks or criminals.
The concept of excluding drunks and criminals from child mortality
figures hadn't occurred to me before, I have to admit! Is there some
manner in which their propensity to speed might be less than the
propensity of other drivers to speed? If so, Paul is silent on the
matter, so we have no way of knowing on what basis he removed his
conveniently round estimates for these numbers from the total numbers.
And again I quote:
71,453 (=109,928*65%) vehicles in incidents with child
pedestrians use a free travelling speed of over 30mph.
This figure is apparently arrived at in much the same way as the
109,928 figure above, except that this time the number he is
multiplying by seven is his guess for the number of child pedestrians
involved in collisions with drivers whose 'free travel speed' exceeded
30mph.
Paul concludes:
57 were killed and we still have 71,396 left who were not
killed in incidents with vehicles that use a free travelling
speed of over 30mph in town.
That's 99.92% who were not killed.
Now I have no idea why Paul felt that he needed to do this bit of
amateur arithmetic and guesswork, because we do know from peer
reviewed scientific studies that mean travel speed dispproportionately
affects both frequency and severity of collisions, and that
pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users. Fortunately they tend
to be kept away from fast-moving traffic. Most child pedestrian
collisions with moving vehicles occur at significantly lower speeds
than the speed limit because they nearly all occur in built-up areas.
The 65% figure that Paul gives for number of people who exceed the
speed limit in 30 mph zones does not imply that 65% of all traffic
involved in collisions with child pedestrians has a 'free travel
speed' exceeding the speed limit, and certainly cannot be used to
justify Paul's recent claims that the impact speed is unrelated
to the free travel speed.
--
Sherilyn