The speed limit poll

[davebullet]

Risking you are trolling but I think if people keep their speed down then the chance of them colliding head on is reduced by a certain amount.

If it all hinges around impact speed then I say knock the open road speed limit down to 65kph, ensures greater survivalibity....

Naa - wasn't trying troll.

I haven't had enough time to draw any conclusions from published NZTA data to whether there is any correlation between crossing the centre line cause of accident WITH excessive speed.

An initial assumption is no - because the number of accidents caused from overtaking is quite low compared to crossing the centre line. One assumes to overtake means one of the vehicles has to speed up (and invariably will exceed the limit doing so).

Ok - risking labouring the obvious.... I think slow drivers might cause more accidents due to their attention span being used elsewhere (reminds me of Keith Code's $10 of attention). However, slower drivers would contribute to less fatalities due to slower speeds of collision.

[Swoop]

I stand to be corrected but NZ, I believe, has 2-3 times the road based Fatalities that the UK has (per capita).

The joke is the pathetic training and testing scheme we have in NZ.
Not that our retards in Wellytown will comprehend that though.

[davebullet]

II stand to be corrected but NZ, I believe, has 2-3 times the road based Fatalities that the UK has (per capita). If the powers that be believe that having a nation drive around religiously stuck on 100kph will bring us any nearer that record, then they are fooling themselves.

And of those crashes (may be fatalities I can't recall) in either country - the UK has a higher percentage that are motorcycle related than in NZ.

[MarkH]

I thought speedo error was up to 10% and that that was why they set their mark at 110.

The speedo is no problem, it would be rare to find any speedo that reads slower than the actual speed - they pretty much all read high to a varying degree. But the human controlling the vehicle - that is a different story! You really can't keep to an exact speed (to the nearest 1 kph) without some sort of computer controlling the speed for you, so your speed will vary a little. It isn't too hard to keep your speed within 10kph of what you are trying to do, but within 4kph is much harder. No one is to blame for some variation in the speed, human beings just aren't as precise as computers - some tolerance for that fact and a little leeway for goodwill sake and most road users are reasonably happy. 4kph tolerance - that's just bullshit IMO.

[martybabe]

And of those crashes (may be fatalities I can't recall) in either country - the UK has a higher percentage that are motorcycle related than in NZ.

I tried to find the facts on that as it seemed an interesting point but I got bogged down with site after site of possible causes rather than simple comparable data. Never mind, here's an interesting little back on topic paragraph I found along the way.


Despite the current concentration on enforcing speed limits to reduce accidents, "Exceeding the speed limit" is a factor in only 4% of accidents, with "Travelling too fast for the conditions" a factor in 8% of accidents, way behind "Failing to look properly" (15%), "Loss of control" (14%), "Failed to judge other person's path or speed" (11%), "Careless, reckless or in a hurry" (11%), or "Poor turn or manoeuvre" (10%).

This Data is for Motorcycle crashes and the cause thereof in the UK. There you go then, 4% of motorcycle accidents in the UK can be attributed to exceeding the speed limit, which leaves 96% that had nothing to do with breaking the speed limit.

A little more attention paid to the other 96% of causes of accidents would seem a prudent exercise then. The constant fixation on speed limit enforcement to reduce road tolls would seem a waste of resources given that the best result you could achieve would be a 4% reduction in crashes.whereas any other single aspect of the causation of crashes would give better returns, teaching people to look properly at junctions for example.

I don't have all the answers, no one does but we are at least all agreed that whatever the fatality figure, it's one to many. Blindly throwing all the blame on one minor contributory factor though isn't going to fix the problem eh.

[swbarnett]

wonder if you aren't both right. The type of accident changes but the numbers dead remain about the same.

Not necessaily so. It is my understanding that the US actually experienced a reduction in the number of dead after raising or removing interstate speed limits.

[swbarnett]

I stand to be corrected but NZ, I believe, has 2-3 times the road based Fatalities that the UK has (per capita).

I don't have a problem with this if it is also true, as I'm led to believe, that we travel more than they do.

[swbarnett]

However, slower drivers would contribute to less fatalities due to slower speeds of collision.

Not necessarily. It is a given that a slow collisions are less likely to result in a fatality. However, if the increased number of collisions outweighs the reduction in said probability the resulting number of fatalities will be higher.

[oneofsix]

I don't have a problem with this if it is also true, as I'm led to believe, that we travel more than they do.

Don't know if it is true but a few years ago I was told that per km travelled we have a lower or at least comparable accident rate.

[oneofsix]

Not necessaily so. It is my understanding that the US actually experienced a reduction in the number of dead after raising or removing interstate speed limits.

umm is that a third side to the debut? If memory serves the original was the present limit verses going slower. You are suggesting that having no or raising the limit to were the driver isn't so busy concentrating on their speedo they can look after the other 96% of the dangers, as quoted in martybabe's post.

[Scuba_Steve]

Not necessaily so. It is my understanding that the US actually experienced a reduction in the number of dead after raising or removing interstate speed limits.

Yes well the opposite did occur when them & Oz introduced limits
I think da US saw a 60% increase in fatalities after listening to the propaganda & took their open road to speed limited & Oz had an increase of 70% after introducing limits... limits save lives aye

Despite the current concentration on enforcing speed limits to reduce accidents, "Exceeding the speed limit" is a factor in only 4% of accidents, with "Travelling too fast for the conditions" a factor in 8% of accidents, way behind "Failing to look properly" (15%), "Loss of control" (14%), "Failed to judge other person's path or speed" (11%), "Careless, reckless or in a hurry" (11%), or "Poor turn or manoeuvre" (10%).

Don't forget in NZ less than 30% of fatalities include "speed" &/or Drink driving, so both factors combined (& I believe "speed" was exceeding the limit & too fast for conditions?) was present in less than 30% of all fatalities on NZ roads

Don't know if it is true but a few years ago I was told that per km travelled we have a lower or at least comparable accident rate.

I think that might have been in a AA Directions mag year or so back???