Speed Kills, every K over is a killer

[Small_Fryz]

Or maybe just a big marketing plan

Now dont get me wrong, excessive speeding is certainly bad, but i think more effort needs to be invested into driver training and education rather than pure speed limit enforcing.

Seriously Australian cops have become so hell bent on speeding i dont think its possible to be caught doing anything but. Drive slow and hold up traffic.. stay in the right lane even with no overtaking... run 3 wide in a 3 lane highway and travel 10kph slower and bank up traffic... But as soon as you go 5kph over speed limit.. BAM!!

And the thing is, im not aware of any research data that proves all these speed cameras and crackdowns are actually making a difference to the road toll.

Are we the only country so hell bent on speeding?
Is every K over a killer?
Speed cameras just govt way to make money?

 

[niky]

Money? Yes. Pretty much that.

Speed isn't a killer. Speed differential is. When the speed differential between drivers gets too large, that's dangerous.

 

[Famine]

Are we the only country so hell bent on speeding?

Nope. Apparently we are as well.

And the thing is, im not aware of any research data that proves all these speed cameras and crackdowns are actually making a difference to the road toll.

They have had no measurable effect in the UK.

 

[Jay]

There has been no reduced road toll effect here either, it's a big business.

Recently a well to do local man spent a lot of money trying to fight his fine (which he says was inaccurate in court, he wanted independant accuracy testing of laser guns and with all the pressure he and others provided the government refused, I forgot the exact reason but it revolved around harming their "business" (or revenue raising) and he lost his case.

The fact is speeding fines is big money

 

[Paulie]

Numerous respectable people have suggested that speeding isn't that dangerous, like Mark Skaife, and I think some Volvo safety head honcho, and a Merc guy as well.

 

[niky]

Simply, speed limits are all about money, not safety.

In fact, there's allegations that some places in the US have artificially lowered their speed limits (which, by law, have to be pegged at the 85th percentile, as determined by research) simply to increase revenue.

That's not to say that it's right or safe to hammer down every single road at over 100 mph (160 km/h), but studies have shown that artificially low limits do nothing for safety, and that whatever the limit, most traffic maintains the same speed... whcih is whatever most people are comfortable with.

 

[DK]

I have a question: do the areas on the autobahns that have no speed limit have higher fatality rates?

 

[Ibonibo]

Yeah Money is main cause i would say.
And maybe to crown themselves for reducing deaths on the streets even if this is aquired due to the safty features from the cars and not from stupid goverment compaigns,

We here have lowered max. autorised speed because of so called polluation during hot days. that's also purly for the image and money as it serves as much as me farting (proved on several occasions that limiting speed will under no way reduce pollution : 120 on 6th gear or 90 on 5th gear. the 90 will pollute more than the 120..)

as for every k over kills.
depends, sure we are not on a race track. There are people on legal road who can't drive, fear driving, or drive under meds,...
So top the speed is a good thing but than criminalize someone for being 20 over the limit,... is an other thing.
As the second post. You should drive a car below your abilities on normal roads. On the track you can test your limits...

There are far enough people driving over their abilities or over the abilities of their cars. It's not because your peugot 205 can do 180kmh that it's save to do it in that car.
Driving 200 in an audi a4 or bmw m3 is not the same thing than a 200 in a ford escort/ka/..., or opel astra/corsa

Driftking: Germany has been limiting those dangerous places during the last 20 years. But generally yes, and because of too much speed and not enough space between cars. It's not the 250 which kills is the 250 in conditions where you should drive 180. So it hasn't much to do with restriced ot not , but with no speed limit the fatalities are bigger if something happens

In general i'm happy with normal and well thaught limits, because there are people who simply can't drive and allowing those people to push the pedal would end in mayhem

 

[orimarc]

I have a question: do the areas on the autobahns that have no speed limit have higher fatality rates?

No. That's because German drivers are (normally) well educated, know their mechanical and human limits and medical assistance must arrive (by law) at the scene of an accident in less than 15 minutes, if I remember correctly.

 

[Ibonibo]

No. That's because German drivers are (normally) well educated, know their mechanical and human limits and medical assistance must arrive (by law) at the scene of an accident in less than 15 minutes, if I remember correctly.

Well not all. There are always lorrydrivers and other drivers who will pull out in front of you when you come fly with over 250kmh.(Top gear S15E02) But in general, Germans do that less than in other countries because they know that when some hits you with over 250 from behind, you're chances of surviving are slim too. So in general Germans look and pay more attention to lane changes on autobahns. But they also approch your car with 200 and 5 meters distance and push you till you let them past.

This is not to generalize, but this are the facts. german police whould say yes, the fatalities (not meaning more accidents) on not limited autobahn are bigger because of higher speeds.

 

[Famine]

Numerous respectable people have suggested that speeding isn't that dangerous, like Mark Skaife, and I think some Volvo safety head honcho, and a Merc guy as well.

To say that speeding isn't dangerous is just as misguided as saying that it is.

Speed is a primary cause in around 4% of fatal accidents in the UK. It's probably a contributing factor in many more, both fatal and non-fatal - the faster you go, the less time you have to react, the greater distance you cover while reacting and acting and the more kinetic energy you're carrying. Travel at 80mph instead of 70mph and instead of stopping the car in time not to hit, you'll hit the obstacle at 30mph with about 100kJ of collision energy.

In an emergency situation, speeding is more dangerous than not speeding (though by that argument we should set all the speed limits to 1mph), but the act of speeding itself is not any more intrisically dangerous than not speeding.


So why do we have speed limits at all? Quite simply, it's a game of compromise - between the risk posed to both yourself and others against the time taken to get where you're going. The limit is the maximum speed you ought to go which poses as little risk as possible compared to the time lost doing so. A 30mph limit in residential areas makes more sense than a 40mph limit - it takes a third longer to get anywhere (but they're usually small areas) and if you connect with a child you're six times less likely to kill them. The time lost isn't significant and the risk reduction is. Compare to a 20mph limit and the time lost becomes more significant while the risk reduction becomes less, though they are applied in very short zones of high population density or near schools. Residential areas are still where the majority of fatal accidents occur, but there's nothing speed limit legislation can do about this - there's no significant risk reduction from lowering it and even if you did, excreta still occurs.

Get out on the open road where there's no-one about and the limit generally becomes 60mph. Why? Because you make significant gains in time over a 40mph limit, but there's very little increase in risk because there's usually no-one in the middle of the road. The biggest risk is then other cars - usually those attempting foolhardy overtakes or simple loss-of-control incidents. No amount of speed limit legislation will help in either case. Excreta still occurs.

The final type of road in the UK is where the whole thing falls down. Dual carriageways - where the two opposing lanes of traffic are separated by a dividing barrier - are the safest type of road (motorways, being a subset of DCs, being the absolute safest) and despite the huge risk reduction of the barrier (you aren't going to collect someone going the other way), the limit is only 15% higher, representing a tiny gain in time. Fatal accidents on motorways are the exception and the commonest situation for one to occur is when there's a static vehicle on the shoulder clobbered by an articulated lorry (limited to 56mph). British motorways have a design minimum speed of 100mph - any car should be technically capable of travelling at 100mph on any stretch of road designated as motorway - but a legislated maximum of 70mph, despite this representing no decrease in risk compared to 100mph. This particular bit of legislation is as arcane as the Highway Code stopping distances - introduced as the capability of the popular car of the day, the Ford Anglia...


We need to shift away from "speed kills" and admit that road users are just people trying to get somewhere. They need to be taught safe, appropriate use of speed, how to judge speed and how to drive according to the conditions (a 70mph limit doesn't mean you can do 70mph when there's 2 inches of standing water), not "town = 30, suburb = 40, countryside = 60, motorway = 70".

But so long as speeding is easy to detect, prove and convict compared to dangerous driving (opinion, requires court) or drunk driving (easy to detect, but requires court and can be easy to dismiss procedurally) and can be done without having to use policemen at all, this won't happen.


That said, I've no sympathy for anyone caught speeding. The limit's there and you know it. If you choose to go above it that's your problem and if you're caught, man up. My brother was nicked for 100mph in a situation and location that the speed would not be inappropriate had there not been a speed limit and I'd happily argue that it was not intrinsically dangerous. But it was illegal and he got caught and fined - he could quite easily have contested it (there were several errors made by the police), but he was travelling well in excess of the limit on a public road and took it like a man.

 

[waggles]

More proof that it's a money making scheme-on A current Affair this evening (), it was mentioned by a journalist for Wheels magazine that Macquarie Bank was attempting to privatize the cameras and gain a slice of the profit themselves.

It was also mentioned that they create another issue-you spend so much time looking at the speedo that you're not really looking at the road.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

1) On speed and speed difference:

My partner got quite annoyed yesterday since people seem to ignore our car on the road. E.g. Put indicator on well in time, driving on the first lane on a motorway on cruise control. Car comes to drive next to us, just at that moment with no one in the third lane. Car hangs beside us till we have to slow down for traffic in front of us.

Other example: while normally overtaking, a car approaches at high speed (over the limit) comes up to drive closely and starts flashing lights, then speeds away as soon as we have finished the passing move.

I think it is more about, giving signs, respecting the others and being proactive. I had to learn the first times I was going fast in Germany and when I believe a truck might overtake another truck, I avoid approaching it fast.

2) On money making scheme:

France has put a system in with automatic cameras, license plate recognition and automatic creation/sending of fines.
They industrialized the sending of fines, this indeed does seem like:
* a money machine
* the recognition there is a serious issue there

 

[Duke]

Speed enforcement by anything other than marked police cruisers parked visibly at the side of the road is by default purely a revenue-generating scheme.

One brightly marked and obvious police vehicle parked in the middle of the verge gets everybody going past it to slow down and obey the limit. Everybody is then traveling the speed limit, at the cost of a single car/officer sitting there. That officer can also bust anyone who doesn't slow down or who is driving dangerously.

Compare that to an unmarked car who can only slow one speeder at a time, and must do so by the slow process of trapping, overtaking, pulling over, and ticketing. Or compare that to a speed camera which does NOTHING to slow any drivers down as they blithely drive past it, collecting tickets of which they are not even aware until much later.

 

[homeforsummer]

Or compare that to a speed camera which does NOTHING to slow any drivers down as they blithely drive past it, collecting tickets of which they are not even aware until much later.

That depends on where you live. Our brightly-marked speed cameras do have the affect of slowing everyone (apart from the particularly stupid) down, albeit only in the section of road the speed camera is actually located.

What it doesn't do is improve road safety or spot bad driving (a camera can't do anything about someone doing donuts in a council estate, for example), both of which are only really achieved with a police presence.

 

[niky]

Compare that to an unmarked car who can only slow one speeder at a time, and must do so by the slow process of trapping, overtaking, pulling over, and ticketing.

And providing fodder for "America's Wildest..." as some inattentive dolt in an SUV sees the cruiser and parked car, panics, fishtails, and clobbers both of them while the cruiser's cameras take the whole thing in...

 

[Omnis]

They have had no measurable effect in the UK.

You don't measure pockets?

 

[Famine]

To run an average car for a year here costs £2,300. Who's going to notice another £60?

 

[Keef]

Now dont get me wrong, excessive speeding is certainly bad, but i think more effort needs to be invested into driver training and education rather than pure speed limit enforcing.

Driver training doesn't make money. The government has to pay for itself somehow, and they do it by stealing your money. That's a problem that has grown out of control here in the States.

In fact, in many areas the government has decided to save money on police deployment by using cameras to cut down costs. In Dayton, the big city I live near, they ended up getting rid of all their red light cameras because...nobody paid the fines. People just blatantly spat on the law, and it was so rampant that the city was forced to cut its losses and give up. Arizona's speed cameras have been widely publicized as losing money left and right because a large portion of fines have never been paid, and never will be. People don't like it so they just toss the letter in the trash.

Some cities around the country even enforce "illegal" speed limits, set too low in order to drum up revenue. I guess the general rule based on testing is that a limit needs to be set at the speed 85 percent of drivers drive to keep the speed differential low, as Niky said, and where there are laws saying speed limits must be set according to those traffic studies, but they aren't, that means the city itself is breaking the law, while punishing drivers for the fake speed law that they've illegally set. Ugh.

I normally drive at a speed I feel comfortable driving at, just like everybody else. Sometimes it's faster, sometimes it's actually slower, and sometimes it's right on the money. I go up my neighborhood hill going at or just over 25, because it feels right. But then I turn on a street that is nearly twice as wide, with no cars parked on the side, where the limit is also 25, but instead I go about 35, maybe more. The road is wide, the grassy areas to the side are open, there aren't and trees hiding little kids of squirrels, it's perfectly reasonable, and much safer on this stretch than it is on the actual main street. On that there are many houses lining both sides, close to the road, trees hanging over the road, hard curbs on both sides, and two lanes going each direction.

My choice of speed might be illegal in many cases but it's reasonable and lots of people seem to agree with me. I keep a V1 in the car so I can keep an eye on the cops who think they're being sneaky.

 

[Joel]

Keep up with the flow of traffic IMO. On a 100 km/h highway, you're better off keeping up with everyone else doing 120 km/h than doing 80 or 90 km/h. Somebody 20 below the limit is more dangerous than somebody 20 above.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Keep up with the flow of traffic IMO. On a 100 km/h highway, you're better off keeping up with everyone else doing 120 km/h than doing 80 or 90 km/h. Somebody 20 below the limit is more dangerous than somebody 20 above.

Safe, maybe, but definitely not a rule of thumb to go by. I was busted this past Friday doing 71km/h in a 50km/h zone (which many assume is actually a 60km/h zone because of reasons detailed by Keef) because I was keeping pace with traffic.

 

[FoolKiller]

Personally, I have always wondered exactly how speed traffic cameras in the US get around this part of the 6th Amendment:

n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

There was a lawyer that subpoenaed the cameras as witnesses in Athens, GA after the technicians that sign off on the tickets admitted that they don't know how it actually works. The assistant district attorney said:

"The citation speaks for itself," he said. "There is no other evidence required."

That sounds very guilty until proven innocent to me. You got the ticket, you're guilty.

 

[Keef]

There was a lawyer that subpoenaed the cameras as witnesses in Athens, GA after the technicians that sign off on the tickets admitted that they don't know how it actually works.

Technicians? Seriously? I thought police officers had to review the photos, match pictures to faces, match license plates and cars and do at least a tad bit of research before they authorized the tickets. Not that I support the idea, I despise it for the same reasons you do, but I figured at least they'd try to be somewhat legitimate in how they issue the tickets. Turns out there's a big fatty sitting behind a desk with a strong stamp hand.

You surely heard about the new rule in Ohio saying that police officers can pull anybody over for speeding if they think they were speeding. They require no objective proof anymore. They may be witnessing you speed if you actually are, but they don't know you were speeding unless they measure it, right? Wrong. They've spent a week judging speed. They're professionals.

I'm not sure if the new rule has been exploited yet, or if we'll hear about such cases publicly, but basically every single person who has heard about it thinks it's ridiculous. It's obviously a money-making scheme.

 

[kiladonut]

I think everywhere should have driving tests like Finland.

 

[Fastas]

.......That sounds very guilty until proven innocent to me. You got the ticket, you're guilty.

That's exactly how it works. Here's a story of a guy who has repeatedly received speeding tickets because his car is parked near a speed camera. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/Jeff-Buck-From-Nottingham-Has-Been-Sent-Two-Speeding-Tickets-While-His-Car-Was-Parked/Article/201001415533342

I think the problem with speed cameras is that they don't remove the problem of speeding motorists. They are best deployed in residential areas though. I think the way they are used could be made a whole lot more civilised though.

As far as speed kills'; in residential areas or built up areas generally, I think restrictive speed limits are a good thing. It doesn't matter how good your brakes are, there is so much information to take in that travelling at any great speed would inevitably be more dangerous.

 

[Keef]

I think the problem with speed cameras is that they don't remove the problem of speeding motorists. They are best deployed in residential areas though. I think the way they are used could be made a whole lot more civilised though.

I'd venture to say governments already understand that speeding motorists will never go away, and therefore they started using these cameras for easy money. And how would you change the way they are used?

As far as speed kills'; in residential areas or built up areas generally, I think restrictive speed limits are a good thing. It doesn't matter how good your brakes are, there is so much information to take in that travelling at any great speed would inevitably be more dangerous.

But how will you make sure people will strictly follow those strict limits?

 

[Fastas]

But how will you make sure people will strictly follow those strict limits?

There are a couple of tried methods around my neck of the woods, the first is a speed camera every 100/200 yards (yeah, really) that works because you just know not to get on the gas or you will be done. The second is the 'average speed' cameras. These are more commonly found on motorways and on biker routes.

The key to both of these methods are that the enforcement is strengthened by the consistency of the deployment.

 

[FoolKiller]

Technicians? Seriously? I thought police officers had to review the photos, match pictures to faces, match license plates and cars and do at least a tad bit of research before they authorized the tickets.

One of them is a lieutenant, but the other is a civilian technician.

I thought I linked the story, but see now that I didn't. Here it is:
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/052610/new_644535855.shtml

That's exactly how it works.

Which is not how due process works in the United States. In all honesty, a judge worth their robes in the US should have thrown the case out the moment the prosecuting attorney said the citation (aka the accusation that you committed a crime) is the evidence. That would be like me accusing you of murder and saying my only evidence is that I say you did it.

In the United States the burden of proof is supposed to be on the government to prove that you committed the crime they say you did. If they cannot do that then you are to be presumed innocent. In most traffic moving violations though it seems as if the burden is always on the accused to prove they are innocent, even when it is a manual ticket provided by an officer of the law. In fact, they even have a system in place where you can just send them a check and sign a line that says you admit to it and never worry with court. If you disagree though you have to show up and prove your innocence.

 

[Pupik]

Personally, I have always wondered exactly how speed traffic cameras in the US get around this part of the 6th Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

That's why it took 15-20 years for it to be legal, although I don't know when it finally became "legit"...when the technology was available, or when the courts turned a blind eye to these revenue-generating tactics disguised as public safety. My "guess" is that since cameras aren't permitted in most courtrooms, they don't have to and/or can't appear. That's one creative way of bending the rules for John Law.

There's speeding in a busy, congested downtown area, speeding in a residential area, speeding in a school zone...all of that is in the name of safety and usually fair and prevents surface streets from becoming potential mayhem. If anything limits should be variable, depending on the amount of traffic and the time of day, not that one could speed to an excessive degree during rush hours. But open-road enforcement of speed limits is an unnecessary money grab, save for those driving at truly insane speeds (I dunno, over 90-100mph?). It's been noted that most traffic citation revenue per capita in Florida is in some of the least-populated counties (Glades, Bradford...), although definitely not every sparsely-populated county plays this game.

 

[DK]

I think everywhere should have driving tests like Finland.

QFT. Any driving test which teaches you how to powerslide must be awesome.