Speed Doesn't Kill, Bad Drivers Do

[Posthumane]

1. A lower speed gives a person more time to react to something that occurs in front of them.

True. If you are driving at 110km/h (speed limit on hwy 1 in most of Alberta) and have a 3 second gap from the car in front of you, you are following about 90m back. If you then speed up to 120 km/h and keep the same following distance, you now only have 2.75 seconds; so you are slightly less safe unless you increase your following distance by a few metres. Then again, you would be even safer if you were going 100, or 90, or 80...

2. Large objects travelling in close proximity to each other at widely different speeds increases not only the potential for undesirable impacts, but makes it harder for a driver to spot a pending collision. If everybody is going the same speed it's much easier to notice and evaluate something out of place.

Right, except that speed limits do not force everyone to drive at the same speed, people tend to file into the traffic flow on their own accord. That traffic usually flows above the speed limit, and it is the people driving considerably slower than everyone else that create a hazard. Admittedly there are people who decide to go much faster than everyone else, and end up weaving through traffic to do so, but the problem there is usually inadequate risk assessment and awareness, not simply "exceeding the posted speed limit."

3. There are bad drivers, and there are good drivers.
4. We cannot identify who is a good driver and who is a bad one by looking at their cars.

We don't need to, that's what driving tests should do. Unfortunately the current crop of examiners are forced to focus primarily on following the letter of the law, and very little attention is given to good car control, traffic flow awareness, understanding how vehicles work, etc. Driving schools pick up on what is being tested and teach to the test - they're in it to make money after all. They stopped teaching a lot of basic items like controlling slides when the industry was privatized.

5. Even if we could identify the bad drivers, we cannot make them drive a different road than we do.

Sure you can, by simply not giving them a license. Make the driving test standard tougher and have it reflect the real world and you may be able to eliminate some of the people who should not be behind the wheel without additional training. Institute mandatory remedial training after an accident, and recurrent testing every 5-10 years to make sure people who've been driving for 40 years are up to date on current practices.

So given these truths it makes sense from a safety policy perspective to limit the speed to something reasonable that balances the need to get where your going in a timely fashion, but still permits the average driver the time to react to unpredictable events in front of them.

As was already mentioned, the article did not advocate eliminating speed limits but stated that it shouldn't be the sole focus of safe driving campaigns. A "reasonable" balance between safety and convenience with regards to speed varies from one situation to another, so it is not realistic to say that if a person stays under an arbitrary round number applied province wide they will be safe, and if they don't then they will crash.

[Rockie]

so it is not realistic to say that if a person stays under an arbitrary round number applied province wide they will be safe, and if they don't then they will crash

I completely agree with this statement, and I've never seen it suggested anywhere either. The word used is "safer".

Right, except that speed limits do not force everyone to drive at the same speed, people tend to file into the traffic flow on their own accord.

I don't see how you can even begin to make people drive the same speed unless you give them a target. Maybe something like a speed limit....

We don't need to, that's what driving tests should do.

Driving tests have never differentiated between good drivers and bad ones. At best they see if on that particular day the applicant safely demonstrates the requirements to receive a license. If you want to think of it in more familiar terms perhaps, we are all licensed pilots. But some are marginal like me, and some are aces like Hedley. But we all pass the test don't we?

[Posthumane]

Fair enough, a speed limit is a good starting point for a target speed, but it should not be gospel.

Driving tests SHOULD differentiate between good drivers and bad drivers. Maybe a better term is adequate drivers and inadequate drivers. You will agree that someone who cannot pass the test is generally a worse driver than someone who can, right? The point is that if the regulatory body or the population determines that there is an issue with automotive safety and that *something* has to be done, that something should be the implementation of better training (and enforcement of that training through better testing) rather than stricter enforcement of speed limits, since the latter does not address very much of the problem. Ideally you would do both and more, but with limited resources you have to set your priorities, and the current focus on speed being the main killer is not the right one in my opinion and that of the author.

While I'm also probably a marginal pilot and not a supreme being like Hedley, I think I am probably better than I was before I did my training and passed the test.

[Rowdy]

You know how in the commercial world we have to do an annual PPC or at least in the VFR world a PCC... YEARLY... Perhaps this should be carried over into operating any kind of motor vehicle. Meet the standards or you dont get access to the roads. If you fail, you get x amount of time in training, by an approved person and then can try again. Pretty simple, no?

Or better yet, take a lesson from the finns.. Require a certain segment of the licencing/training be on a wet skidpad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy8LJx71_9o


Just because..

[bandaid]

You know how in the commercial world we have to do an annual PPC or at least in the VFR world a PCC... YEARLY... Perhaps this should be carried over into operating any kind of motor vehicle. Meet the standards or you dont get access to the roads. If you fail, you get x amount of time in training, by an approved person and then can try again. Pretty simple, no?

Or better yet, take a lesson from the finns.. Require a certain segment of the licencing/training be on a wet skidpad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy8LJx71_9o


Just because..

Don't give the Government any ideas. The would have to set up a whole new ministry of employees and probably a Minister of automobile licensing all recieving a pension. Office space, secretaries...... careful what you wish for.

[Rockie]

Fair enough, a speed limit is a good starting point for a target speed, but it should not be gospel.

It isn't gospel, it's a limit above which there are minor penalties if caught. If there are no penalties it isn't much of a limit and it will be even more flagrantly ignored than it is now.

Driving tests SHOULD differentiate between good drivers and bad drivers. Maybe a better term is adequate drivers and inadequate drivers.

Define "good" and "bad". It's much easier to define "adequate" which is exactly what the driving test is designed to do (a flight test too for that matter). There is a minimum standard, and if you meet it you are at least an adequate driver (pilot).

The point is that if the regulatory body or the population determines that there is an issue with automotive safety and that *something* has to be done, that something should be the implementation of better training (and enforcement of that training through better testing) rather than stricter enforcement of speed limits, since the latter does not address very much of the problem.

As a rabid advocate of more and better training in aviation I have to agree with you here for the most part. But like aviation there has to be certain regulations in operating a vehicle in the interests of safety for all. Speed limits are one of them.

You know how in the commercial world we have to do an annual PPC or at least in the VFR world a PCC... YEARLY... Perhaps this should be carried over into operating any kind of motor vehicle. Meet the standards or you dont get access to the roads. If you fail, you get x amount of time in training, by an approved person and then can try again. Pretty simple, no?

That's a great idea, but imagine the size of the bureaucracy?

[Rowdy]

That's a great idea, but imagine the size of the bureaucracy?

More like imagine the cost...

[pilotsteve]

...

This is a total non-starter.... The thread title is pure BS.

Wyoming had unlimited speed limits in the rural zones... They have since repealed them when they looked at the fatalities. It lasted something like three years.

Got proof? Anywhere I've read shows reduced accidents upon removal of speed limits. Fact is, most people drive at the speed they feel comfortable which isn't a whole lot different than posted speed limits or what they do now.

Here in Montana they noticed a reduction of accidents when there weren't any speed limits:
http://www.motorists.org/press/montana- ... ty-paradox

The autobahn's lack of speed limit hasn't impacted its safety in comparison with other countries similar highways.

[Expat]

...

This is a total non-starter.... The thread title is pure BS.

Wyoming had unlimited speed limits in the rural zones... They have since repealed them when they looked at the fatalities. It lasted something like three years.

Got proof? Anywhere I've read shows reduced accidents upon removal of speed limits. Fact is, most people drive at the speed they feel comfortable which isn't a whole lot different than posted speed limits or what they do now.

Here in Montana they noticed a reduction of accidents when there weren't any speed limits:
http://www.motorists.org/press/montana- ... ty-paradox

The autobahn's lack of speed limit hasn't impacted its safety in comparison with other countries similar highways.

And the cars are much safer now, with better tires and occupant protection...

[Beefitarian]

Why did they re-instate the speed limits in Montana?

[pilotsteve]

Why did they re-instate the speed limits in Montana?

On March 10, 1996,[90] a Montana patrolman issued a speeding ticket to a driver traveling at 85 mph (136 km/h) on a stretch of State Highway 200. The 50 year-old driver was operating a 1996 Camaro with less than 10,000 miles (16,093 km) on the odometer. Although the officer gave no opinion as to what would have been a reasonable speed, the driver was convicted. The driver appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. The Court reversed the conviction in case No. 97-486 on December 23, 1998; it held that a law requiring drivers to drive at a non-numerical "reasonable and proper" speed "is so vague that it violates the Due Process Clause ... of the Montana Constitution".

Effective May 28, 1999, as a result of that decision, the Montana Legislature established a speed limit of 75 mph.[91]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limi ... es#Montana

[Posthumane]

The German government was considering imposing a 130km/h speed limit on the autobahn, for the same reason that the US implemented the 55mph speed limit: fuel consumption. This is also the reason why I don't go too fast on the highway, even when there aren't many vehicles around and there are clear sight lines for many kms in every direction.

That's a great idea, but imagine the size of the bureaucracy?

I think recurrent testing could be implemented without a HUGE increase in bureaucracy. Currently (at least in Alberta) your driver's license is good for 5 years. When it expires you have some short period of time to renew it. If you wait past that period of time, you have to take the driving test again to get your license back. They could simply add the requirement that everyone take a driving test to renew their license every 5 years. All that would be needed is more driver examiners.

For my work I am required to do a defensive driving course every 3 years, as well as take a driving test for each vehicle I am allowed to drive. This means in the last 10 years I've taken 5 or six driving tests. While there is a bit more burden with this system, it isn't huge.

[Expat]

Driving tests are one thing, but real world driving, everyday, is the best training. Driving daily at speeds of 130, and paying attention to the road and the hazards, will have a better effect than doing driving tests.
After more than six years here, supervising a driving section of 25 drivers, I have yet to see more than fender benders. Pot holes here are craters, and roads are filled with bicycles,donkey carts, pedestrians who never look at the traffic. Livestock on the road is more the norm, than the exception.
So when I go to Canada, and see the 4 laners, my feeling is to drive 160, and safely.
I have driven the I-95 to Florida in the 70s, at 55 mph. What a curse... Now at least the US is getting some sense back.

[bandaid]

more the norm, than the exception.
So when I go to Canada, and see the 4 laners, my feeling is to drive 160, and safely.
I have driven the I-95 to Florida in the 70s, at 55 mph. What a curse... Now at least the US is getting some sense back.

Well then you're a menace sorry to say. If I am pulling out on the highway and you're coming at double the speed limit how am I supposed to know? When the s)(* hits the fan at that speed, we're both dead. My wife and kids will miss the husband and father, I don't know about yours.

[pilotsteve]

more the norm, than the exception.
So when I go to Canada, and see the 4 laners, my feeling is to drive 160, and safely.
I have driven the I-95 to Florida in the 70s, at 55 mph. What a curse... Now at least the US is getting some sense back.

Well then you're a menace sorry to say. If I am pulling out on the highway and you're coming at double the speed limit how am I supposed to know? When the s)(* hits the fan at that speed, we're both dead. My wife and kids will miss the husband and father, I don't know about yours.

If you switched lanes without assessing the traffic behind you and caused an accident, it wouldn't be you I would feel sorry for.

[bandaid]

more the norm, than the exception.
So when I go to Canada, and see the 4 laners, my feeling is to drive 160, and safely.
I have driven the I-95 to Florida in the 70s, at 55 mph. What a curse... Now at least the US is getting some sense back.

Well then you're a menace sorry to say. If I am pulling out on the highway and you're coming at double the speed limit how am I supposed to know? When the s)(* hits the fan at that speed, we're both dead. My wife and kids will miss the husband and father, I don't know about yours.

If you switched lanes without assessing the traffic behind you and caused an accident, it wouldn't be you I would feel sorry for.

I never mentioned changing lanes I mentioned pulling out on the highway. You can honestly tell me that you can tell how fast a car is coming. At the speed limit I would have lots of time, at twice the speed I wouldn't.
I've met guys like this many times over my 31 years of being a paramedic. I worked out of Golden B.C. for almost 13 years. So many avoidable deaths. So many contributed to speed. Honestly, ask any paramedic/firefighter/police officer what he/she has witnessed and ask them how they feel about it. You think it only effects you but we are the ones that have to go home afterwards and try and forget what we have just witnessed. I have witnessed many things over the years, I hope you never see one like them.

[pilotsteve]

I never mentioned changing lanes I mentioned pulling out on the highway. You can honestly tell me that you can tell how fast a car is coming. At the speed limit I would have lots of time, at twice the speed I wouldn't.

I assumed you were using an acceleration lane. You should still be confident of the rate of closure before you pull out, regardless of what speed the other driver is doing.

Speed may contribute to the severity, but not necessarily the cause of the accident. The statistics I've read tend to show a reduction or no difference in overall fatalities with the absence of speed limits.

[Beefitarian]

Going 160 around Golden would be about like going 300 in Saskatchawan wouldn't it?

[Rowdy]

Learn to merge effectively and that should be a non issue my bald brother!

I've attended more accidents related to POOR driving than I can count. Speed is the magnifier not the cause.

[bandaid]

I never mentioned changing lanes I mentioned pulling out on the highway. You can honestly tell me that you can tell how fast a car is coming. At the speed limit I would have lots of time, at twice the speed I wouldn't.

I assumed you were using an acceleration lane. You should still be confident of the rate of closure before you pull out, regardless of what speed the other driver is doing.

Speed may contribute to the severity, but not necessarily the cause of the accident. The statistics I've read tend to show a reduction or no difference in overall fatalities with the absence of speed limits.

Sorry Steve, some people just don't get it until it's too late. You put others at risk for your thrills you're a menace plain and simple.
Can you honestly tell me that you have never had the crap scared out of you by some jackass doing something that you weren't expecting? That jackass probably thinks he is a great driver too and you were both lucky to avoid something tragic that time. Here in Kelowna we have four lanes where they do not have merge lanes and the worst time is at dawn or dusk or at night. I've completely lost count of how many accidents I have attended at intersections, run lights, excessive speed, inattention.......ect, ect, ect. Slow down and pay attention.

[Hedley]

By definition, every accident could be attributed to excess speed at the time of collision. That's not a terribly useful observation, though.

I remember hearing that alcohol was involved in a high percentage of fatal car accidents. Dunno if that still true any more. Times have changed. Everyone used to drive hammered. That was just how you got home.

[Rockie]

To put it again in aviation terms there is rarely a single cause of an accident, but rather a chain of events with contributing factors. Fatigue is one where it is definitely a major factor, but is all too easy to disguise behind phrases like "the pilot failed to..."

Same with speeding. Lots of things contribute to an accident on the road and speeding is definitely one of them. Sure, if the guy hadn't jumped out in front of you you wouldn't have hit him. You wouldn't have hit him if you weren't going so fast either.

Unfortunately not everybody on the road is the highly skilled race car driver you are. They do unpredictable things and unpredictable things sometimes happen all by themselves. Higher speed gives you less reaction time. Disparate speeds on a road increases the likelihood of swapping paint. It's simple physics and human factors.

[iflyforpie]

Speed doesn't kill, it amplifies stupidity.


Young males cry the blues (if they aren't on state-run insurance like we are in BC) when they go to insure their first car, citing senile senior citizens and airhead women get into more crashes than young guys who supposedly have much better driving skills.

But the difference is what happens when something does go wrong. Little old Mrs. Smith driving her Buick at 30 km/h or the woman doing her makeup on the freeway just doesn't have the potential to cause the same collateral damage as two guys drag racing their cars on public roads.

[Shiny Side Up]

I remember hearing that alcohol was involved in a high percentage of fatal car accidents. Dunno if that still true any more.

Unfortunately if I remember rightly, alchohol is still the leading factor in most fatal auto accidents, and claims the lion's share of the total. Edmonton, little suprise, lead the nation in these statistics.

[Expat]

Alcool and speed have been singled out as leading causes, because they are measurable. Poor driving, erratic driving due to the use of radios or mobiles, is hard to enforce, and therefore not penalized as much. But it is still there as a danger.
The problem with this, is that anyone who gets a ticket for poor driving, will usually get away in court. Therefore cops do not enforce the quality of driving, because they lose in court.
This has lead to a culture where it is assumed that only alcool and speed kill, because these offenses are the most ticketed, and measured.