Wales becomes Trumpton

motorbiking said:
impact speed...again... yawn... again.
Click to expand...
So what, again? What is likely to have the lower impact speed, travelling at 70mph or 30mph? Or will everybody anticipate the situation correctly and have the same impact speed?
 
denso13 said:
Or will everybody anticipate the situation correctly and have the same impact speed?
Click to expand...
Is that perhaps what your argument actually is? Speed is irrelevant because everyone will brake in time and have the same low impact speed?
 
denso13 said:
So what, again? What is likely to have the lower impact speed, travelling at 70mph or 30mph? Or will everybody anticipate the situation correctly and have the same impact speed?
Click to expand...
It depends.

According to long term data..

In 2022, very few casualties were recorded on motorways, despite motorways accounting for a fifth of all road traffic in Great Britain, indicating that a person is less likely to be involved in a collision when travelling on a motorway compared to urban or rural roads.

In 2022, the majority of road fatalities occurred on rural roads, whereas the majority of all casualties occurred on urban roads. Although motorways account for 21% of road traffic, they account for a much smaller proportion of road fatalities (6%) and casualties (4%). By contrast, rural road fatalities (59%) are over represented compared to the proportion of rural road traffic (44%). Similarly, urban roads account for a much higher proportion of road casualties (63%) than their relative traffic level (35%).
denso13 said:
Is that perhaps what your argument actually is? Speed is irrelevant because everyone will brake in time and have the same low impact speed?
Click to expand...
This is you being a troll.. again.. yawn.

Nobody has said speed is irrelevant.

Which bit of ensure you can stop in the distance you can see is clear, suggest that the speed you choose to drive is irrelevant?
 
denso13 said:
Ok, we're getting there, and I would argue slower speeds generally lessen the severity of any injuries.
Click to expand...
You seem to be arguing that the slower we drive, the slower we will hit someone and it simply doesn't hold up.
 
denso13 said:
It's nuts. I'm somehow trolling by saying lower speeds are safer. Is that not just common sense?
Click to expand...
I don't understand it either .

20 may, or may not, be too low, but it's certainly the right speed in some places

If its right for some places and speed isn't an issue then why have any limit anywhere?

Yes it's common sense
 
motorbiking said:
You seem to be arguing that the slower we drive, the slower we will hit someone and it simply doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...

This, and the fact that, when a task is perceived to be less worthy of concentration (in this example, driving at an unjustifiably low speed), the likelihood of having a collision actually increases.

Safe driving is about evaluating a number of factors, physics being just one of them.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
Are we ever likely to get to utopia ?
Click to expand...

carmanmemoranda said:
No. You can't argue against that. Well you try to.
Click to expand...


When a task is perceived (which is subjective) to be so monotonous/boring/untaxing/"safe", concentration levels fall.
This is a facet of human behaviour.

Adhering to an (perceived) unjustifiably low speed limit might lessen the consequences of an impact in theory, but it might

a. increase the likelihood of it happening, and
b. actually increase its severity (as the "comatose" driver fails to take a level of evasive action that they would have done, if they'd been more "switched on")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top