Speeding and Accidents..

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I am not entirely surprised. Speeding on it's own is not by default a recipe for disaster. I am pretty sure that on a dry, near empty motorway if I sat in lane three and did 90mph I'd be perfectly safe.

Would I be safe doing the same on a wet, busy motorway? No but that's the the difference with appropriate speed. An appropriate speed may be below the speed limit anyway so defining safety on that one criteria is ludicrous. It's also a fantastic way to brain wash the public into thinking that speeding is so bad you have to be fined for it regardless of safe driving.

Often the unsafe driving I have witnessed has rarely been due to someone driving/riding at a silly speed. It's usually a lack of observation, driving beyond their means/their cars limits and being ignorant to the rules of the road. Then again, I doubt anyone on here is surprised by this! :(
 
The issue with speed is not the speed limit as such.

A driver should always drive at a speed appropriate for the road conditions.

30 mph might be legal in built-up areas and the same time excessive for the specific road and conditions.

(Conditions include weather, visibility, wet road, congestion, pedestrians... etc).

The question I would ask therefore is in what percentage of accidents was the driver(s) deemed to be driving at excessive speed for the specific road conditions that prevailed at the time of the accident.

That would be more relevant that just stating the legal speed limit.
 
IMO the biggest contributor to accidents is the complete lack of awareness of what's going on around them and anticipation of hazards, that, and increasingly distraction.
As a former bike rider, for many years, I was taught the life saving benefits of awareness and anticipation. Saved me on several occasions.
How many times do you see a small car driven by a young person doing 90 in the outside lane.
They quite often seem to think they are invincible.
Was it always that way? Or maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy.
I don't mean to imply all young people are poor drivers. Other ages are available.
 
Regular retest to demonstrate a competance to be a road user would save lives, money and reduce hold ups.
CBT at ports of entry achieving a time limited certificate, or taken at a British emnassy within another State, would reuce the number of internationals getting it wrong on our roads.

Speeding is more difficult these days anyway, the roads are flippin' full.
 
The question I would ask therefore is in what percentage of accidents was the driver(s) deemed to be driving at excessive speed for the specific road conditions that prevailed at the time of the accident.

You could argue 100%, since they were involved in an accident?! :D

I would imagine that single carriageway NSL country roads are the worst in terms of injury/death. 60 mph would be suicidal on many of those, so the majority of accidents would occur at 'legal' speeds.
 
How many times do you see a small car driven by a young person doing 90 in the outside lane.
They quite often seem to think they are invincible.
Was it always that way? Or maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy.
I don't mean to imply all young people are poor drivers. Other ages are available.

It's always been that way, but youngsters have much faster cars nowadays. I remember struggling to get my Viva up to 80 with 4 on board :D
 
I think this has been an argument for many years, its not speed that kills it is the competency of the driver that is a major factor.
 
Just looked up the stats - 49bhp (1100cc), top speed 88 mph!
Tyres are far better nowadays,
ABS and traction control are life savers.

I got my HA Viva up to 90 (on the bouncing speedo at least), and it was unstable. Any hard braking would have been with fingers crossed.
 
I think this has been an argument for many years, its not speed that kills it is the competency of the driver that is a major factor.
It could be argued that lower speed requires lower competency.
 
Tyres are far better nowadays,
ABS and traction control are life savers.

Modern cars are much safer, but the ability to lease a 300+ bhp hatchback for £x per month is a big temptation to youngsters nowadays. Quite possibly all the safety aids make them feel even more invincible though. We probably all saw the pictures of the A Class that hit a tree on an urban 40 mph road a month or so back

enfieldcrash1.jpg
 
I'm sure all those who bat along motorways at 90+ in thick fog are all perfectly safe, their wisdom wouldn't allow otherwise.

Added later. I think I recall reading that if two cars, one travelling at 70mph and the other at 100mph both brake hard at the same time, at the moment the 70 car stops the 100 car is doing 70mph.
 
Last edited:
Tyres are far better nowadays,
ABS and traction control are life savers.

I got my HA Viva up to 90 (on the bouncing speedo at least), and it was unstable. Any hard braking would have been with fingers crossed.
...and cheeks clenched!
 
I think I recall reading that if two cars, one travelling at 70mph and the other at 100mph both brake hard at the same time, at the moment the 70 car stops the 100 car is doing 70mph.

That's to do with inertia increasing with the square of the speed.


The one that sticks with me is that we all think 5mph over the limit is trivial but it isn't if you have to brake in an emergency.

Example assuming equal braking of 0.8g : Two vehicles see a pile up ahead and start to brake. One is traveling at the 60mph speed limit and stops just in time to avoid a collision. The other vehicle is traveling at 65 mph and obviously will collide but at what speed ?

Answer 25 MPH.
 
That's to do with inertia increasing with the square of the speed.

Methinks you mean kinetic energy. Proportional to mass and square of speed (well technically velocity).

Momentum is proportional to mass and speed.

Classic anti-tank shell is a solid shot - not explosive. The effect of firing it gives it KE. The penetration and destruction of what it hits is down to that KE. So a 1kg shot travelling at 1000m/s is a lot nastier than a 2kg shot at 500m/s or two 1kg shots each at 500m/s.

This means that a Fiesta travelling towards you a 100mph is theoretically much worse news than a Range Rover at 50mph when it comes to making you go splat ..... if you stop it when it hits you - though in practical terms you're splatted either way - and you're not going to be really bothered by how much farther the bits and mush fly when the Fiesta finishes you.
 
That article basically attempts to assert a negative. The only way to test the effectiveness of a speed limit is to remove it!:eek:
 
Methinks you mean kinetic energy. Proportional to mass and square of speed (well technically velocity).

Momentum is proportional to mass and speed.

Classic anti-tank shell is a solid shot - not explosive. The effect of firing it gives it KE. The penetration and destruction of what it hits is down to that KE. So a 1kg shot travelling at 1000m/s is a lot nastier than a 2kg shot at 500m/s or two 1kg shots each at 500m/s.

This means that a Fiesta travelling towards you a 100mph is theoretically much worse news than a Range Rover at 50mph when it comes to making you go splat ..... if you stop it when it hits you - though in practical terms you're splatted either way - and you're not going to be really bothered by how much farther the bits and mush fly when the Fiesta finishes you.

On that cheerful note...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom