You are welcome as a guest, and as long as you do not abuse that hospitality, your views and comments will be respected.

............ [Associaton of British Drivers] ...... [Transaction 2007 - Working for the UK Transport Industry] ...... [Associaton of British Drivers] ...... [Transaction 2007 - Working for the UK Transport Industry] ...... [Associaton of British Drivers] ...... [Transaction 2007 - Working for the UK Transport Industry] ............

..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.............

# A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 9 2003 at 12:45 AM
Forum Owner

Haven't got a link I'm afraid:

Jan 3, 1996
by Alex Kuznetsov,

--------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT:

There seems to be a universal belief, reflected in the current speed limits,
that "speed kills", and that, as someone in this newsgroup said recently,
"it does not take a rocket scientist" to figure out why. Ever since I got my
first speeding ticket, I was trying to do just that - understand in a
rational way what are the speed-related driving risks, and is there an
optimal driving strategy that minimizes those and other driving risks.
Perhaps my "rocket scientist" background (I do theoretical physics for a
living) has made this analysis more complicated than it should be, but I
hope the conclusions would be of interest to everybody here. In short, I
argue that while increased speed is obviously a risk factor, there are other
factors that can compensate that risk and are almost always more important.
I propose a quantitative model to assess the speed-dependent risks, and use
it to discuss the optimum driving strategy.

To analyze the "speed kills" argument quantitatively, let us consider the
speed dependence of your chances to get killed or seriously injured in an
accident. Let us call this number R. As in many other areas of science, this
probability can be represented as a product of several factors:

R = S*E*A*K

S stands for "skills" and includes factors such as driving skills, vehicle
capability, how much you concentrate on your driving, etc - everything that
is speed-independent. It is just a constant number that is different for
different drivers and different cars, but is not very important for our
analysis of speed-dependent risks.

E means "exposure". This is an extensive (means it accumulates as you keep
on driving) factor that should reflect your exposure to various driving
hazards. For example, it can be simply proportional to the number of miles
driven. We will discuss a model for the exposure factor below.

A stands for the probability of getting in an accident at any given time. It
is an "intensive" quantity (does not accumulate as you keep on driving). It
is obviously dependent on speed as well as some other factors that we
discuss below. It can be thought of as "risk rate": total risk is your risk
rate times exposure. Let's call it "accident rate".

Finally, K is a "kill factor": the conditional probability of getting killed
or seriously injured provided you got in an accident. It will depend on
speed.

There are of course many unknowns involved in each of those factors, so it
is impossible to give an absolute number for R (like "you will get killed
every 125,000 miles on average"). However, it is possible to analyze how the
risk depends on speed by making some reasonable assumptions about the risk
and exposure factors.

Let us start with the simplest case: no traffic. You have an empty highway
in front of you, and you need to cover L miles going from point a to point
b - what can we assume about the above risk factors?

E: exposure will be simply proportional to L (miles driven). Think of it
this way: there is a certain chance to encounter a road hazard (a pothole, a
deer, a slick spot) per every mile, so the more you drive, the more likely
you are to encounter something you'll have to avoid. Exposure here is
speed-independent.

What is speed-dependent is the accident risk, A. Your ability to avoid a
hazard will be reduced at higher speeds. To a good approximation, A will
simply be proportional to the speed, v: A = c*v, where c incorporates road
conditions. The argument is simple: if you go twice as fast, you will have
twice less time to react to a hazard that doubles the chances of an accident
(same goes for veering off the road in a turn - the risk is also
proportional to v). More realistic models of the accident risk should allow
for rapid increase in A at speeds above the mechanical limit of the vehicle.
I will disregard this effect here because I believe most cars still behave
quite competently at 80 mph which is the highest traffic speed I will dare
to consider.

Now the "kill factor", K. It is a chance to get killed or gravely injured in
an accident when we already know the accident occurs. This is the quantity
crash tests attempt to measure. It is a number that varies between zero and
one, like all probabilities. It obviously grows with speed, but the
important thing here is that it cannot exceed one: to put it another way, if
you crash at 200 mph, you will be just as dead as if you crashed at 100 -
doubling the speed does not double the kill factor. This factor should grow
with speed at low speeds, but once you are over a speed where almost any
accident results in severe injury or death, the kill factor levels off and
gradually approaches one. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use
the following functional form for K:

K = 1 - exp(-v/30 mph)

This function grows linearly with v at low speeds (below 30 mph), and
approaches one as you go above 30 mph. It DOES NOT mean you get killed if
you crash at 30 mph: it gives a 63% chance of injury or death for a 30 mph
crash, a 73% chance for 40 mph, an 86% if you crash at 60, and a 95% chance
to get killed in a 100 mph crash. I think this is reasonable, but there is
room for debate here.
So, what does it give us for the risks of driving down an empty highway?

R is proportional to : E*A*K = (exposure proportional to L)*
*(accident rate proportional to v)* the kill factor =

= L*v*(1 - exp(-v/30)

per mile driven: R/L ~ v*(1 - exp(-v/30))

It is a growing function of v and, I think, the cornerstone of the "speed
kills" ideology. It tells you that, if you take the risk at 50 mph as a
reference of 100, your risk at 10 mph is 7, at 30 mph it is 48, at 60 mph it
is 130, and at 90 mph it is a whooping 212. So, you are half as likely to
get killed if you go 30 than if you go 50, and you are more than twice as
likely to get killed if you go 90.
The conclusion that risk is a monotonously increasing function of speed is,
however, valid only for the specific conditions (empty highway) which very
few of us actually encounter in real life. The presence of traffic makes a
major difference here. Let us try to incorporate the effects of traffic on
the driving risks in our model.

E: exposure to driving hazards should grow with traffic density. You still
have the above-discussed road-hazard component of exposure that is simply
proportional to miles driven (L), but in the presence of traffic we should
also add exposure to traffic hazards. This is proportional to traffic
density which we will characterize by a factor, d (e.g. the number of cars
per mile of highway), and to TIME you spend in the traffic: E = L + d*T . L
and T are related, L = vT, so if we want to calculate risk per mile driven
we should rewrite it as: E = L( 1 + d/v). It is very important to note that
now exposure is speed-dependent, in fact it DECREASES with speed. The reason
it decreases is simple: if you go faster, it takes you less time to go from
a to b so you have less time to get in trouble (though the accident rate may
increase with speed). I have never seen a discussion of this point but it is
very important: every second you spend on the highway with traffic around
you adds to your risk exposure, if you spend less time there by going
faster, you DECREASE the exposure.

A: accident rate will still have a component that is simply proportional to
v. However, the presence of traffic means that it should also depend on your
speed relative to other cars, and on the traffic density. The simplest way
to incorporate such dependence is to add a "traffic" component to the
accident rate that has a minimum at the average speed of traffic, u
(although Rahul may disagree, there is such a thing as the flow of traffic:
u can be defined as the average speed of cars in your immediate vicinity).
The simplest function with a minimum is the parabola, so let's write:

A = c*v + d*(v - u)^2

the relative balance between the first (obstacle avoidance) and second
(traffic) components of the accident rate can depend on road conditions
which can again be taken into account by varying c . This functional form
provides for a rapid increase in accident rate when you deviate from flow of
traffic, just as it is in real life. I am tempted to make this adjustment
asymmetric by making it more dangerous to go slightly below the flow of
traffic than to go slightly above, but that would be beyond the accuracy of
the model.
K: it seems reasonable to assume that the kill factor does not depend much
on the presence of traffic: once you got in an accident, you will or will
not get killed according to your speed. This may be an oversimplification,
but let's leave it at that.

So, in the presence of traffic our risk becomes:

R [per mile driven] ~ (exposure )* (accident rate) * ( kill factor)

= (1 + d/v) * (c*v + d*(v - u)^2)* (1 - exp(-v/30))

This now depends not only on your speed, but also on the density and speed
of traffic. Anyone with a graphing calculator can have some fun plotting
this function for various values of the parameters. Let me just verbally
summarize the main features of such plots:
1) even in a modest traffic (low d), it becomes extremely dangerous to
deviate from the flow speed, either above or below.

2) in moderate and heavy traffic, if you go with the flow (v = u), the
increase in accident rate due to higher speeed (c*v in second term) is
largely offset by the DECREASE in exposure (d/v in the first term), so the
product (the total risk) would remain independent of speed.

3) The increase in the flow speed (which is what speed limits attempt to
regulate) does increase the risk even if you go with the flow. E.g. if the
flow speed increases from 50 to 90 (for the sake of argument), the risk
increases by 17% due to the last term, the kill factor. However, the
increase is much less than what we had on an open highway, where the same
increase in speed led to risk increase of 112%. This is again because of
decreasing exposure at higher speeds.

4) Any attempts to obey the speed limit when the flow is substantially
faster are suicidal, according to this model. Doing 55 when everybody else
is doing 70 can increase your risk by more than a factor of 100!

5) It also appears that "traffic kills" rather than "speed kills": traffic
density d is the single most important factor that affects the total risk.
Doubling the traffic density approximately doubles the risk and makes it
twice as dangerous to deviate from the flow.

In conclusion, this analysis corroborates what most of us already know from
experience: the safest thing to do is to go with the flow and screw the
speed limit. Contrary to what the insurance industry wants us to believe,
the increase in flow speed DOES NOT lead to proportional increases in death
risk. The decrease in exposure to traffic hazards resulting from spending
less time on the road (that's why everybody wants to go faster in the first
place) largely offsets the increase in accident rate at higher speeds.
Finally, it appears that a good way to decrease your risk is to try reducing
the local density of traffic around you - avoid traveling in "platoons" even
if it means momentarily increasing your speed to get away from the pack.

I fully realize that many assumptions made here are debatable, and I would
appreciate suggestions and criticisms, especially statistical data that
could help improve this model. I believe that trying to understand the
complex phenomenon of auto accidents on the basis of rational analysis is a
better way to deal with it than just cry "speed kills" every time a drunk
ends up wrapped around a pole. I hope this contribution has been
constructive, inspite of its length.

 Respond to this message

195.92.168.173

# Verrrry Interestinggggg....

May 9 2003, 1:06 PM
 As Henry Gibson used to say ! Kusnetsov has certaily looked at the phenomenon of speed even if I feel that his mathematics are rather questionable. He admits himself that most of his model is debatable ! I think that he is saying that as long as certain conditions are followed, speed has little effect on accident or death numbers on the roads. As long as the speeding vehicle is on an empty motorway that has no hazards like potholes or slick-spots, and it is mechanically sound and the driver is as good as he/she can get, then speed has little effect on accident rates. The only time that he says that speed REDUCES accidents is because it cuts down the TIME that the vehicle is at risk. I must dismiss this argument, as speeding to get to ones destination may cut down on the actual time spent in the danger zone, but it increases the risks DURING that time. Kuznetsov's suggestion that as long as you "go-with-the-flow", speed does not contribute to accidents is totally spurious, as BOTH of these scenarios are unrealistic and not like any typical road condition that any of us would encounter during an average driving day. Of course SPEED in a vacuum is innocuous, but we are not speeding in a vacuum, we are speeding where other vehicles are travelling at different and variable speeds and where vehicles are changing direction & speeds all of the time. Kuznetson DOES admit that speed is relative to risk when he says: K = 1 - exp(-v/30 mph) This function grows linearly with v at low speeds (below 30 mph), and approaches one as you go above 30 mph. It DOES NOT mean you get killed if you crash at 30 mph: it gives a 63% chance of injury or death for a 30 mph crash, a 73% chance for 40 mph, an 86% if you crash at 60, and a 95% chance to get killed in a 100 mph crash. I think this is reasonable, but there is room for debate here. OK...you are just as dead at 60 MPH as you are at 160 MPH, but you are less likely to get dead at 20 MPH than you are at 60 MPH. THIS...is the factor that the speed demons will not admit to and is the factor where all of the defences for speeding fall down. Kuznetsov's model is complex, but it is one that I am basically inclined to agree with as the way that things are when he discusses REAL LIFE. NOW BOGUSH....Rather than just quoting paragraphs that support your permissive speeding opinions, why don't you debate openly what Kusnetsov has said. Maybe THEN we can pin you down to some truths instead of your usual hypothetical twists and turns. Go on then...I dare you ! Papaumau If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Sam69
212.137.19.134

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 9 2003, 4:11 PM
 Surely the best thing to use here is common sense. Driving at 70mph in a buit up urban area is obviously incredibly stupid. I'be yet to see anyone on here advocating this sort of thing. Driving at 90mph on motorway may be incredibly dangerous depending on the conditions. The fact remains that motorways are built for high-speed. The fact that the vast majority of drivers ignore the 70 limit and never have an accident on a motorway must be more than just pure luck. Then we get more interesting cases. For example a road which has it's limit changed due to campaigns etc. Nothing has changed hazard wise on the road so using common sense if it was safe to travel at 40 on it yesterday it's safe to travel at 40 on it today, subject to conditions of course. If something has changed on the road, like a scholl crossing for example, then fair dues. I don't think anyone here is advocating never changing limits. What I do tend to see a lot is highly simplistic "if you drive fast you are dangerous" type arguments which advance us not one jot towards the goal of reducing casualties on the roads. The whole process of travel in incredibly complex and ignoring that complexity mortallay damages your argumnet. Let's have some common sense for god's sake. To discuss other issues why not visit http://www.presidentgas.net/forums

195.92.168.167

# "If you drive fast you are dangerous"

May 9 2003, 5:31 PM
 I see nothing wrong with this statement if it is taken in context ! Using the same common-sense as you talk about we must agree that the person that drives fast does not do so in an untouchable environment. There is no such thing in real life ! The person that chooses to drive fast in ANY of the road conditions of congested Britain IS DANGEROUS simply because the conditions do not suit fast driving when everybody else is driving at variable speeds and directions. ( Kusnetsov's point ). In a perfect world we would all be able to synchronize our fast speeds to suit the traffic that we wish to fit into, but even if we are all good at this kind of synchronization in this imperfect world many other variables come into the situation that we cannot necessarily plan or account for at the moment of hazard. This synchronization that Kusnetsov talks about is MUCH EASIER at slow speeds than it is at high speeds, so even on open - and specially designed - motorways the risk factors are increased pro-rata with the roadspeed BECAUSE of this lack of easy synchronization. THIS is what supports the "if you drive fast you are dangerous" indictment, not the suggestion that the fast driver is more intrinsically dangerous than the slow driver. Speeding in built up areas is not what we are talking about here either, as most sane people would agree that speeding in urban areas is simply madness.Papaumau If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Sam69
212.137.19.134

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 9 2003, 5:42 PM
 pap 85% of drivers ignore the 70mph limit. This equates to tens of millions of drivers. Of these, abour 2 or 3% will have an accident on the motorway. Now, are you telling me that will all these millions of people driving dangerously that the small number of accidents is nothing but a fantastic run of good luck lasting over 40 years? Come on! Be serious. Stop being so simplistic in your argument. To discuss other issues why not visit http://www.presidentgas.net/forums
Freda Woodyard
62.254.0.7

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 9 2003, 6:23 PM
 "Of these, abour 2 or 3% will have an accident on the motorway." That's 1 in 50 to 1 in 33. Far too high a proportion. Maybe some in this group haven't got more than 50 friends and family - I certainly do and I don't want any of them involved in an accident. I'll stick to rail travel wher you have to commute every day for 150 years to statistically be involved in an accident. No members of the travelling public were killed on the Midland Main Line (parallel to the M1) during the whole of the last century.
Per Septiv
82.38.232.179

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 9 2003, 8:08 PM
 "Maybe some in this group haven't got more than 50 friends and family - I certainly do and I don't want any of them involved in an accident." Freda.......may I ask how many of your friends/family have been hurt on the road? I'd stay off Midland Mainline.....there must be one due soon.................
Per Septiv
82.38.232.179

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 9 2003, 8:15 PM
 Papps.....for crying out loud. You can't eliminate risk. You have to manage it. You've turned theorising into an artform. Why don't you set up home in a cave and wrap yourself in bubble-wrap? No fires, of course. IF THERE AIN'T A PROBLEM, PAPPS WILL STILL SEARCH FOR A SOLUTION
bogush
Forum Owner
81.79.27.40

# Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

May 9 2003, 8:37 PM
 What papii!! and Georgeda seem to be unable to grasp, despite it being explained to them repeatedly, is that if you have a silly low limit you get a very wide (and so dangerous) range of speeds up to the loony (and so dangerous) which is lost in the wide variation (and so is a hard to control danger). Which is (yet another reason) why inappropriately low limits have a higher accident and fatality rate than appropriate (higher) limits. With appropriate (higher) limits you get most people driving near and below the limit, going with the flow, and so having far fewer accidents and fatalities than with the lower, but more dangerous limit. Plus the loony stands out like a sore thumb if he tries to drive in his normal fashion, and so doesn't. Yet two more reasons which higher (appropriate) limits cause fewer accidents and fatalities. When are you two going to take off the blinkers, break free of the brainwashing, and realise that the real causes of accidents have nothing to do with the simplistic "Speed Kills" or any of the other anti-car campaigns. Worse, all the so called safety campaigns are counter productive. Speed Kills Campaigns Kill! I'm amazed that anyone can be so ideologically opposed to freedom of movement that they are prepared to see hundreds, thousands, even, die to further their political agenda. But then, the commie pinko's have always been prepared to slaughter the innocents in their thousands to advance their cause. And the environMental greenies are spearheaded by people who think that man is a virus attacking planet earth and should be destroyed. So no real surprises there then.
Sam69
80.0.134.3

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 9 2003, 10:58 PM
 Freda Why do you have a car then? You're dangerous you know! To discuss other issues why not visit http://www.presidentgas.net/forums

195.92.168.163

# "The slower but more dangerous speeds"

May 10 2003, 12:17 PM
 What total and complete bollocks..... Tell me please...is it the faster vehicles that run into the slower vehicles because they are going too slow, or is it the slower vehicles that run into the faster vehicles ? STOP NOW....no knee-jerk reaction....think about it ! You argue that ALL of the vehicles should be going as fast as YOU want to to enable safe synchronization, but you are not willing to admit that it is the result of this attempted synchronization going wrong that is the cause of many of the accidents. Surely if the synchronization is done at SLOWER speeds then the synchronization is much easier to initiate AND complete, and, even if it DOES go wrong, then the resulting accident will be far less destructive at the slower speeds. Papaumau If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Sam69
212.137.19.134

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 11 2003, 8:57 AM
 Pap 2% of the people exceeding the limit on motorways have accidents. If speed kills, why don't they all have accidents? Could it possibly be that there just might be accident causation factors other than speed? Hmmmmm?? To discuss other issues why not visit http://www.presidentgas.net/forums
bogush
Forum Owner
81.77.237.118

# Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

May 11 2003, 12:35 PM
 That's a tricky one Sam. Let's see if papii!! can follow this one through: STOP NOW....no knee-jerk reaction....think about it ! When they raise speed limits accidents usually go down. When they lower speed limits accidents usually go up. Not only around the world, but in the UK too. So tell me again papii!! Georgeda: What exactly does speed do?
Freda
62.254.0.7

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 11 2003, 12:48 PM
 Then why are there now fewer accidents on the Ring Road since the average speed has been reduced?

195.92.168.166

# As I have said before....

May 11 2003, 1:43 PM
 There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics ! The person that depends on statistics pulled out of the air to support an argument is the same person that is losing that argument. I prefer to argue my case on facts derived by my own calculations supported by good ole common sense. Of course there are more points of consideration to stir into the mix when coming to sensible conclusions about speed, but I STILL re-iterate that is is the SPEED factor that is the most important one. All of the road conditions and personal weaknesses of the vehicle and human capabilities taken into consideration I STILL maintain that accidents are less likely at slower speeds and if they do occur at these slower speeds less death and destruction ensues as a result of these slower speeds. I also STILL maintain that it is the lack of synchronization at these mixed speeds that cause the accidents and if synchronization fails it is the vehicles and their occupants that are travelling FAST that suffer the most damage. No questionable figures needed here...just some good common sense ! Papaumau If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
bogush
Forum Owner
81.77.78.74

# Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

May 11 2003, 4:41 PM
 "Then why are there now fewer accidents on the Ring Road since the average speed has been reduced?" Fewer? You mean a kid was killed in 84, or whenever it was, but no one was killed last year? Or do you mean that the fact that the ring road has been closed off for most of the time that the speed cameras have been up for tram works, "improvements", "safety" works, and relaying new resurfacing so that they can recycle the classy granite kerbs for the tram routes isn't likely to have reduced accidents. Or the fact that anyone who has anything to actually do with their lives will now take the direct route, rather than travel the long way round the new, "improved", "safer", speed scamera saturated ring road where, when it isn't actually closed off, or effectively closed off by the "improvements", and you aren't stopping for the empty pelican crossings with no flashing amber phase: you're crawling round at 30, 35 if you're lucky (indicated)?
bogush
Forum Owner
81.77.78.74

# Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

May 11 2003, 4:45 PM
 Which bit of: STOP NOW....no knee-jerk reaction....think about it ! When they raise speed limits accidents usually go down. When they lower speed limits accidents usually go up. Not only around the world, but in the UK too. Do you still struggle with? And why do you find it so hard to grasp the simple, common sense fact that you are infinitely (do the calculations yourself) safer being missed at 40 than hit at 20, or missed at 80 than being hit at 40?

195.92.168.169

# Typically Bogush.....

May 11 2003, 5:57 PM
 "safer being missed at 40 than hit at 20, or missed at 80 than being hit at 40?" I just love it how you pick these arbitrary numbers out of the ether.... Here are some more: You are safer being missed at 10,20,30,40,50,60,70, and on into infinity than you are being hit at 10,20,30,40,50,60,70 and on into infinity....BUT.... At the higher speeds you are more liable to be crushed, mangled, disfigured, smashed and killed if you ARE hit ! Oh yes...high speed in an accident invariably kills but slow speed invariably does not ! Just ask your Russian friend....whatsisname ! Papaumau If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Sam69
80.0.134.3

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 11 2003, 10:41 PM
 Pap Can I assume that you think of officially published accident figures (by the government no less) as "figures plucked out of thin air"? How strange. I'm really struggling to understand your position on this. Let me see if I understand it correctly. You are saying that "speed" is the most important causation factor in accidents and that if everyone was to slow down there would be less deaths and injuries on our roads. Is this correct? I'm struggling with this one because there is no evidence to support this theory. In fact, all available evidence shows that our fastest roads (our motorways and main trunk routes) are also our safest, and that the majority of accidents occur in urban areas whilst travelling below the posted speed limit. Now you see, this is why I have trouble believing the theory that it is speed that kills. After all, if this was the case, would it not be reasonable to assume that accidents would be higher where people where going faster? To discuss other issues why not visit http://www.presidentgas.net/forums
Freda
62.254.0.7

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 12 2003, 8:27 AM
 So your solution is to segregate all roads and widen them to motorway standards. This would involve demolition of most of our cities so that people could drive at high speed safely from nowhere to nowhere. Some posters on this board should seek medical help!

195.92.168.172

# Sam....

May 12 2003, 1:34 PM
 It begins to look as if you are influenced by statistics to the detriment of common-sense ! Statistics can be made to say anything that the biased statistician wants them to say, that is why I always take statistics with a pinch of salt. I am ALWAYS suspicious of numbers that have been compiled by anyone other than myself ! After looking at statistics and either believing them or not, I always go to - what you already suggested - good ole common-sense to help me to make up my mind. I have provided a number of points that support my agreement of the "speed kills" thesis, including poor synchronicity of traffic at variable speeds and the fact that stored kinetic energy as opposed to inertia works to destroy vehicles and their occupants at higher speeds rather than at lower speeds. It would appear that the speed freaks on this forum are so entrenched in their desire for the buzz that they have simply closed their minds to the unavoidable facts that when one travels fast and has an accident that one is far more likely to be killed than if one travels slowly and has an accident. Ergo.....high speed kills more often than slow speed does, when the conditions allow it to ! What about that statement do you and the other speeders not understand ? Papaumau If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
bogush
Forum Owner
81.79.78.178

# Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

May 12 2003, 7:17 PM
 "So your solution is to segregate all roads and widen them to motorway standards. This would involve demolition of most of our cities so that people could drive at high speed safely from nowhere to nowhere. " Where, exactly, has anyone said that Georgeda?   "Some posters on this board should seek medical help!" The very least you need is an eyesight test, and one for dyslexia.
bogush
Forum Owner
81.79.4.240

# Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm

May 12 2003, 9:44 PM

"It begins to look as if you are influenced by statistics to the detriment of common-sense !"

If you could read papii!! you would already have spotted, innumerable times, that I come to this debate from the perspective of someone who observed what happens in the real world.

With respect to traffic problems and solutions.

And engineers.

And social engineers.

And I have subsequently observed the statistics presented by the creator types and the "creative" types.

And guess which ones reflected reality.

Hint:

The ones you disagree with.

"Statistics can be made to say anything that the biased statistician wants them to say, that is why I always take statistics with a pinch of salt."

"I am ALWAYS suspicious of numbers that have been compiled by anyone other than myself !"

How many actual accidents in progress have you actually observed then, papii??!!

A million?

A thousand?

A hundred?

Ten?

One?

So, a very statistically significant number then!

"After looking at statistics and either believing them or not, I always go to - what you already suggested - good ole common-sense to help me to make up my mind."

"I have provided a number of points that support my agreement of the "speed kills" thesis, including poor synchronicity of traffic at variable speeds"

But, as I have explained, you get terrible synchronicity with low (inappropriate) speed limits and excellent synchronicity with high (appropriate) speed limits.

You also get inattention at low (inappropriate) speed limits and excellent attention with high (appropriate) speed limits.

Consequently you get lots of  "high speed" accidents with low (inappropriate) speed limits and few, "low speed" accidents with high (appropriate) speed limits.

It makes perfect common sense, it just doesn't immediately spring to mind if you are taking a narrow, simplistic, blinkered, biased, anti-car view.

"and the fact that stored kinetic energy as opposed to inertia works to destroy vehicles and their occupants at higher speeds rather than at lower speeds."

No, kinetic energy does NOT destroy vehicles and their occupants at higher speeds rather than at lower speeds.

That is the point.

At inappropriately low speeds you get high speed impacts.

And at appropriate high speeds you get low or no speed impacts.

It's the impact (the speed at impact if you prefer) that causes the damage.

Not the speed of flow.

But with flow generated by (inappropriately) low speed limits you get lots of impacts, and high collision speed impacts.

With the flow regulated by (appropriately) high speed limits you get few collisions and low impact speeds.

Or, as I have often put it:

Would you rather be hit at 20, or missed at 40?

Hit at 40, or missed at 80?

QED

It would appear that the low speed freaks on this forum are so entrenched in their desire for the buzz of control freakery that they have simply closed their minds to the unavoidable facts that when one travels appropriately fast and has an accident that one is far more likely to have been alert anf going with the flow, and so far less likely to be killed to be killed than if one travels slowly and has an accident because in such a scenario no one is paying attention and there is low synchronicity.

Ergo.....high speed kills less often than slow speed does, when the conditions allow it to!

What is it about that statement that  you and the other anti-appropriate-speeders do not understand?

 This message has been edited by bogush from IP address 81.79.4.240 on May 12, 2003 9:53 PM

Per Septiv
82.38.232.179

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 13 2003, 1:23 AM
 "Then why are there now fewer accidents on the Ring Road since the average speed has been reduced?" A couple of residents told me that traffic switched to other routes. Is this not correct?
Per Septiv
82.38.232.179

# Life's a bitch, but it could be worse..........

May 13 2003, 1:30 AM
 .........Papps could be in a position of power

195.92.168.168

# A step too far.....

May 13 2003, 11:19 AM
 I am turning inside out to try to understand THIS LOT: "At inappropriately low speeds you get high speed impacts. And at appropriate high speeds you get low or no speed impacts. It's the impact (the speed at impact if you prefer) that causes the damage." One line at a time, as you like it...... "At inappropriately low speeds you get high speed impacts. You can only get high-speed impacts if somebody is driving at high-speed ! "And at appropriate high speeds you get low or no speed impacts." You cannot get low or no speed impacts at high speed if there is high speeds present at the time of impact....The idea is ludicrous ! "It's the impact (the speed at impact if you prefer) that causes the damage." NOW...your talking sense ! Do I detect a weakening of your position here ? Finally...The speed of "flow" matters not a jot until that flow has been interrupted by an obstacle that is obeying the laws of inertia. THEN the speed of "flow" becomes the speed at which the flow suddenly stops and the vehicle that was travelling fast and the object that the fast-travelling vehicle hits are both destroyed by the released kinetic energy transmitted FROM the fast-travelling vehicle, NOT from the slow-travelling vehicle or other inertia-bound object ! ERGO.....Fast-travelling vehicles and their occupants that stop suddenly for whatever reason will be more explosively damaged than slow-travelling vehicles ! You just CANNOT see that point can you ? Papaumau If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
bogush
Forum Owner
81.77.44.62

# Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

May 13 2003, 7:57 PM
 I think I understand your problem now papii!! You have problems understanding!   One line at a time, as you like it......> "At inappropriately low speeds you get high speed impacts.You can only get high-speed impacts if somebody is driving at high-speed ! Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm How do you define high, speed, and impact? If I am travelling through a vacuum in space with no other spacecraft or matter in my path I can be travelling at an infinitely high speed, but I can't have any kind of impact. If I am travelling safely on a straight empty stretch of motorway I can be travelling as fast as my car is capable. But I still can't have any kind of impact. Ditto if I am travelling safely near another car also travelling safely, and at the same speed. And if we are travelling dangerously at 69 and 70mph, the fastest I can hit him is at 1mph. However if you and Freda are travelling dangerously at 20mph through a home zone you can hit a child 20 times as fast as I can hit the car doing 69mph. And each other 40 times faster. And if you are both driving within the speed limit on a single carriageway you can collide at a whopping 120mph, 120 times faster, even if the road is actually safe for a faster speed. But I realise we are delving into realms way beyond your and Georgeda's intellectual capacity here. So I won't "Labour" the point for you.   > "And at appropriate high speeds you get low or no speed impacts."You cannot get low or no speed impacts at high speed if there is high speeds present at the time of impact....The idea is ludicrous ! Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm When I said: "But I realise we are delving into realms way beyond your and Georgeda's intellectual capacity here." I was jesting. But there is an old saying: Many a true word spoken in jest. Perhaps someone could explain that to you. As I have just tried to explain this. I'll try one more time. If car "A" drives into the back of car "B" at 100mph, but car "B" is doing 99.9mph then it crashes into it at a tenth of a mile per hour. How slow does a collision have to be before you accept that it is a low speed collision? And if car "A" is doing 99.9mph, and car "B" 100mph, ther is NO collision. Hardly rocket science. But clearly too taxing for someone with what was your claimed IQ again? > "It's the impact (the speed at impact if you prefer) that causes the damage.""NOW...your talking sense !" YES!"Do I detect a weakening of your position here ?" NO! "Finally...The speed of "flow" matters not a jot until that flow has been interrupted by an obstacle that is obeying the laws of inertia. THEN the speed of "flow" becomes the speed at which the flow suddenly stops and the vehicle that was travelling fast and the object that the fast-travelling vehicle hits are both destroyed by the released kinetic energy transmitted FROM the fast-travelling vehicle, NOT from the slow-travelling vehicle or other inertia-bound object !" NO!In the real world, as explained innumerable times, at (appropriately) high speeds drivers are more alert because they are continually being stimulated, and because they are fresher, and also, to use your new word, there is far better synchronicity, so there is NO impact, so the speed doesn't come into it. At (inappropriately) low speeds drivers minds switch off and they are also more fatigued because journeys take longer, and there is also much worse "synchronicity" as you like to call it. So there are impacts. At the full alleged "safe" speed. So, again, would you rather be hit at 20, or missed at 40? Hit at 40, or missed at 80?   ERGO.....Fast-travelling vehicles (20, 40) and their occupants that stop suddenly for whatever reason because their drivers are asleep or inattentive and brake too late, or not at all, or don't take avoiding action, will be more explosively damaged than faster travelling vehicles (40, 80) that stop before the collision, or avoid it altogether!You just CANNOT see that point can you ?
Sam69
80.0.134.3

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 13 2003, 9:48 PM
 Freda So your solution is to segregate all roads and widen them to motorway standards. This would involve demolition of most of our cities so that people could drive at high speed safely from nowhere to nowhere. I offered no "solution". I was merely pointing out that our fastest roads have the fewest accidents and that the majority of accidents take place at below the posted speed limit. This is not what you expect if you believed that "speed" kills. Your response, however, not only completely missed the point (I am assuming deliberately because nobody is that simple), you then went off into the realms of fantasy, compiling your own future scenario and trying (and failing) to attribute it to my original point. Hardly a reasoned and thoughtful post. Some posters on this board should seek medical help! Indded that is the case. I recommend looking up "psychologists" in Yellow Pages and booking yourself in for a visit. Now pap... You really are letting your prejudices run away with you here. I shall simplify my original point. The faster the speed limit on a given road, the smaller the number of accidents. This is not a statistic. It is a fact. It is arrived at simply by counting the number of accidents and the type of road they happened on. Your point is that the faster people drive the more likely they are to have an accident. Yet, of those accidents that have actually occured, this is not the case. Can you see why I am having trouble with your theory?To discuss other issues why not visit http://www.presidentgas.net/forums
bogush
Forum Owner
81.79.15.183

# Errrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmm

May 13 2003, 11:33 PM
 So papii!! and Georgeda: Neither of you bothered to read the Express post either? Or did you find it too painfull to respond to? They do say that the truth hurts.
George
194.216.125.2

# Re: A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments

May 17 2003, 11:16 AM
 I've not visited this site for a while..........Rather boring with the same old people spouting the same old rubbish!
bogush
Forum Owner
81.77.176.32

# Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm

May 17 2003, 4:29 PM
 But surely Freda Georgeda reports back on what she finds when she logs on with your computer? And which same old people? How many times heve you read the Express article writer? Or where you refering to the Tram Consultant who used to head up finance on the LA tram system?
 Current Topic - A Mathematical Analysis Of The "Speed Kills" Arguments Respond to this message