The WORST drivers, which cars do they drive?

[the fonz]

You're wrong. Speed is not a major factor in 95% of accidents.

 

It is always a factor though. As a general rule for every 1 mph reduction in average speed, collision frequency reduces by around 5% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000).

 

The speed you are travelling is a major factor when it comes to accident severity.

Edited April 25, 2016 by the fonz

[Cyclone]

Well of course it is. The amount of energy involved increases according to the square rule.

 

That doesn't inherently make 50mph unsafe though, or motorways would be very dangerous roads.

 

Appropriate speed is the key.

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2016 at 14:22 ----------

 

I'm surprised that with so many self-opinionated good drivers around that any accidents happen at all. Maybe many accidents are actually because whilst these "expert" drivers think their decisions (whether inside or out of the laws of the road) are good, simply because they made them - in fact, they are not.

The biggest idiot can drive at speed - you just stand on the accelerator. It's dealing with any consequences that takes the expertise and, until its put to the test, how many of us know that we could deal with it effectively?

My local roads had speed limits increased from 40 to 50mph - against the wishes of the council - merely because the police admitted they were unable to police them. Does that make it right? I could easily put my foot down and do way in excess of the new recommended limit but, knowing the road like the back of my hand and the many dangerous pitfalls on it, would that actually show any intelligence or should I be allowed to use common sense and stick to the original limit?

A 90 year old I know drives around his town at 30mph - within his capabilities, within the law at the correct speed limit - shouldn't he be allowed to do this without harassment from others who, in their wisdom, have decided that their 50mph is what he should be doing?

There are lots of daft drivers but also a lot of arrogance on our roads too. A bit more patience, respect for life and maybe questioning whether we are indeed as perfect as we think we are, may not go amiss.

 

Sticking to the speed limit doesn't make you a good driver though. People who never speed could regularly change lane without looking, fail to indicate, pull out in front of people, run traffic lights and so on. All of which are far more dangerous than doing 80mph on the motorway in good conditions.

[wrinkly67]

Well of course it is. The amount of energy involved increases according to the square rule.

 

That doesn't inherently make 50mph unsafe though, or motorways would be very dangerous roads.

 

Appropriate speed is the key.

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2016 at 14:22 ----------

 

 

Sticking to the speed limit doesn't make you a good driver though. People who never speed could regularly change lane without looking, fail to indicate, pull out in front of people, run traffic lights and so on. All of which are far more dangerous than doing 80mph on the motorway in good conditions.

Agree, Cyclone - when you build in all the other idiotic things the driver could be doing. But your argument only holds up if you also include them in the 80mph motorway driver in good conditions - who could be texting, arguing with the OH, yelling at the kids, oblivious to what's happening around him/her, reading a map, drunk from the night before, thinking of the meeting they're late for! All presumptions as to what either driver could be doing. And heaven forbid if it was a 17 year old who'd just passed their test.

[Justin Smith]

An example, I got hit by a car on Boxing day 2014, during all that bad snow. The driver blamed the snow, but, basically, if she`d been driving more slowly she wouldn`t have hit me, though, in this case, we`re talking 5mph instead of the 10 mph she was actually driving at !

Presumably on a thirty mile per hour road, which means she wasn't speeding or driving an excessive speed considering the circumstances. You remind me of a friend who has an accident roughly once a year, it is always the other driver's fault but for some reason the insurance never really want to pay for the damages incurred.

 

The speed limit was and is totally immaterial. I was driving at 5mph in the icy snowy conditions and I didn`t hit anyone because I was able to stop without skidding. She drove at 10mph, skidded when she braked, and hit someone, me.

QED she was driving at excessive speed.

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2016 at 21:52 ----------

 

I think we've now established Justin as a very sophisticated troll.

 

There can be no other explanation for his posts on this subject.

 

What are you talking about........ Kindly supply quotes where I`m personal or offensive, if unable to do so, please retract your unwarranted comment. Unless, of course, you think trolling is making an argument you disagree with, and even worse if it`s difficult to argue with......

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2016 at 21:55 ----------

 

It is always a factor though. As a general rule for every 1 mph reduction in average speed, collision frequency reduces by around 5% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000).

 

The speed you are travelling is a major factor when it comes to accident severity.

 

Very interesting. But beware, quoting such statistics to the Motoring Mafia (if they don`t support their case......) does open you up to charges of being a troll, apparently......

[DT Ralge]

You're wrong. Speed is not a major factor in 95% of accidents.

 

The most common cause of accident is a right turn across the carriageway, the right turning driver fails to observe the oncoming car and pulls into its path.

 

You are mis-quoting stats that, in themselves, need a little caution before interpreting them. The stats will always understate the full picture. They are derived from only those crashes that the Police attend and although dead bodies get attention, injuries minor and serious are understated by a considerable degree if figures from A&E are referred to.

There's (factor 306) "exceeding speed limit", factor 307 "travelling too fast for the conditions", 601 "aggressive driving"; 602 "careless, reckless or in a hurry" for the Police to take a view on. Bear in mind that the lowest % quoted by the anti-camera brigade is a very selective interpretation of the Stats19 figures. Ask yourself whether the Police will mark "exceeding speed limit" if there's not a lot of evidence to back it up.

[Cyclone]

5% is the figure for speed being a major contributory factor.

I'm sure it's a minor factor in many other accidents.

But turning right across another car is a major factor in something like 43% of accidents isn't it.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 07:23 ----------

 

Justin - trolling is nothing to do with being offensive or making personal attacks.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 07:24 ----------

 

 

 

The speed limit was and is totally immaterial. I was driving at 5mph in the icy snowy conditions and I didn`t hit anyone because I was able to stop without skidding. She drove at 10mph, skidded when she braked, and hit someone, me.

QED she was driving at excessive speed.

 

Suddenly you understand this point. 20 pages after other people tried to explain it to you.

The speed limit is totally immaterial.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 07:26 ----------

 

Agree, Cyclone - when you build in all the other idiotic things the driver could be doing. But your argument only holds up if you also include them in the 80mph motorway driver in good conditions - who could be texting, arguing with the OH, yelling at the kids, oblivious to what's happening around him/her, reading a map, drunk from the night before, thinking of the meeting they're late for! All presumptions as to what either driver could be doing. And heaven forbid if it was a 17 year old who'd just passed their test.

 

They're driving dangerously, but not because they're doing 80 mph. They'd be driving dangerously at 70mph, or 60mph.

 

So someone (in that situation) doing 80 mph without doing anything else to be dangerous, is not dangerous.

Despite what Justin believes.

[RonJeremy]

5% is the figure for speed being a major contributory factor.

I'm sure it's a minor factor in many other accidents.

But turning right across another car is a major factor in something like 43% of accidents isn't it.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 07:23 ----------

 

Justin - trolling is nothing to do with being offensive or making personal attacks.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 07:24 ----------

 

 

Suddenly you understand this point. 20 pages after other people tried to explain it to you.

The speed limit is totally immaterial.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 07:26 ----------

 

 

They're driving dangerously, but not because they're doing 80 mph. They'd be driving dangerously at 70mph, or 60mph.

 

So someone (in that situation) doing 80 mph without doing anything else to be dangerous, is not dangerous.

Despite what Justin believes.

 

Quite, exactly, quite and quite right.

[DT Ralge]

5% is the figure for speed being a major contributory factor.

I'm sure it's a minor factor in many other accidents.

But turning right across another car is a major factor in something like 43% of accidents isn't it.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 07:23 ----------

 

Justin - trolling is nothing to do with being offensive or making personal attacks.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 07:24 ----------

 

 

Suddenly you understand this point. 20 pages after other people tried to explain it to you.

The speed limit is totally immaterial.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 07:26 ----------

 

 

They're driving dangerously, but not because they're doing 80 mph. They'd be driving dangerously at 70mph, or 60mph.

 

So someone (in that situation) doing 80 mph without doing anything else to be dangerous, is not dangerous.

Despite what Justin believes.

 

"Major factor"? Where is this claimed?

"43%" for crossing the path of others? Where did you read this (I'm interested in your source since, despite being genned-up on such things, I have never seen this figure. Undoubtedly, this is a concern, but how many of these "driver/rider error or reaction" crashes involve the sub-category 406 "failed to judge other person's path or speed" without putting the 3rd party into the "speeding" box?

Edited April 26, 2016 by DT Ralge

[Cyclone]

Lets not do the stats game again. We all know where the 5% figure comes from.

 

Whole bunch of numbers available in this article

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html

 

the 43% could be this actually (in which case consider this to be a correction)

 

Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and

was reported in 42 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2011.

Not the right turn, but just "failure to look".

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9277/rrcgb2011-04.pdf

 

Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these

accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities.

That's quite clear.

 

Over 60 per cent of fatalities in reported road accidents had driver or rider error or

reaction (which included failing to look properly, loss of control and sudden braking),

reported as a contributory factor leading to the accident.

As is that.

 

Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents, while

travelling too fast for conditions was attributed to 4 per cent. For vehicles involved in

fatal accidents these figures were both 7 per cent.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Cyclone

[monkey104]

An example, I got hit by a car on Boxing day 2014, during all that bad snow. The driver blamed the snow, but, basically, if she`d been driving more slowly she wouldn`t have hit me, though, in this case, we`re talking 5mph instead of the 10 mph she was actually driving at !

 

 

The speed limit was and is totally immaterial. I was driving at 5mph in the icy snowy conditions and I didn`t hit anyone because I was able to stop without skidding. She drove at 10mph, skidded when she braked, and hit someone, me.

QED she was driving at excessive speed.

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2016 at 21:52 ----------

 

 

What are you talking about........ Kindly supply quotes where I`m personal or offensive, if unable to do so, please retract your unwarranted comment. Unless, of course, you think trolling is making an argument you disagree with, and even worse if it`s difficult to argue with......

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2016 at 21:55 ----------

 

 

Very interesting. But beware, quoting such statistics to the Motoring Mafia (if they don`t support their case......) does open you up to charges of being a troll, apparently......

 

I think you will find the Fonz took his information from a credible source, not some lackadaisical assessments made whilst not concentrating on his driving.