Wales becomes Trumpton

motorbiking said:
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.
Click to expand...
The ROSPA link I provided didn't show motorways separately. If that is done against miles travelled the above is true. That way can be seen as all miles done by all people that use them,

An aspect they made no mention of with the 20mph figures. Looked at this way if miles are low enough they could be the most dangerous areas to drive in. ;) I doubt if they are but there is a need to be careful with simple statistics.

Who's idea it is Dept Of Transport.
 
ajohn, I'd love to debate with you, but most of the time I have no idea what you are trying to say.
 
motorbiking said:
ajohn, I'd love to debate with you, but most of the time I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...
This is one example of use of billions of miles.
TraficAccedents.jpg

100% is all road miles covered by vehicles. That is broken down between 3 road types to indicate traffic levels. It's also possible to relate ksi to to these miles on each road type. Sometimes it's just ksi per billion miles ignoring road type.
 
Brigadier said:
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")
Click to expand...
And nobody has yet got any figures to decide upon.

Apart from mbk who agrees it's too soon to tell, knows the data is incomplete and doesn't include a full year yet so the figures are confused BUT knows that it's safer to drive faster

The points being made are not saying limits must be 20. They are saying, let's see what the figures prove

But please don't join in with mbk and deny that a collision at 20 is less likely to cause death or severe injury than at 30, 40 or any other higher speed
 
motorbiking said:
what will your impact speed be if :

You drive at 35mph and take 1.8 seconds to react to a hazard.
You drive at 28mph and take 3.2 seconds to react to a hazard.
Click to expand...
Or the driver is doing 15 and looking at the kids in the back seat. Taking much longer to react, even if they see a hazard.

Closed questions like yours only suit your argument, not the overall situation.
 
motorbiking said:
what will your impact speed be if :

You drive at 35mph and take 1.8 seconds to react to a hazard.
You drive at 28mph and take 3.2 seconds to react to a hazard.
Click to expand...

what will your impact speed be if :

You drive at 70mph and take 4.0 seconds to react to a hazard.
You drive at 20mph and take 4.0 seconds to react to a hazard.
 
Brigadier said:
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")
Click to expand...

But must be worse depending if you are doing 19 or 59. I cannot see how the consequences would be the same.
 
Last edited:
Sneezing at 70 on a motorway could mean you travel 150+ feet while blind.
 
denso13 said:
But must be worse depending if you are doing 19 or 59. I cannot see how the consequences would be the same.
Click to expand...

The point being that a competent and attentive driver, doing 59 in a 60 (where 59 was appropriate for the conditions and situation) would be able to not have the impact in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top