Speed Doesn't Kill, Bad Drivers Do

[5x5]

I agree totally and it's nice to see someone in the press trying to bring attention to this. It's from the Edmonton Sun. The link is at the bottom if you want to forward it to anyone.

Speed doesn't kill, bad drivers do
By KERRY DIOTTE
Last Updated: 30th July 2009, 1:39am

We need a whole new approach in the fight to make roads safer in Alberta.

That's glaringly obvious in the wake of just-released Alberta motor vehicle crash statistics.

You know how we're constantly lectured that "speed kills?"

Well, the latest stats show speed is not the demon it's cracked up to be when it comes to crashes.

The provincial stats revealed the true villain casing the majority of crashes is none other than driver error. That was listed as a "contributing factor" in 90% of all of the 158,055 Alberta crashes in 2008.

And what about that demon, speed? According to the new annual study of traffic stats, it was only a "contributing factor" in 26% of the accidents.

There's an obvious question that should be raised in light of that.

Why then do we as a society see so much of our traffic safety enforcement resources put toward catching speeders?

Given driver error was a contributing factor in 90% of the collisions, wouldn't it be better to toughen up driver testing or see more cops patrolling streets looking for driving infractions than manning speed traps?

The head of the U.S.-based National Motorist Association (NMA) -- that has 6,000 members including some in every Canadian province -- figures police should put the bulk of their traffic cops into patrolling streets watching for bad drivers and officials should quit trying to brainwash the public that drunk driving and speeding are the two biggest enemies of traffic safety. (Not that we should ever stop the war against drunk drivers or those seriously exceeding speed limits.)

"If they were honest they would point out that neither speeding nor driving under the influence have a whole lot to do with the majority of traffic accidents that occur," NMA president Jim Baxter told me.

"It has much more to do with drivers who are distracted by cellphones or kids in their car and so on.

"If people would pay more attention to what they're doing when they drive, it would result in a major decrease in accidents," said Baxter.

"It's not a question of someone going 10 or 15 kmh over the speed limit. And if you could get (officials) in a private room they'd probably admit that.

"Law enforcement in traffic control areas spends the bulk of its resources in speed enforcement.

And how can you justify that? By making speed the most evil thing that's out there."

His organization quotes U.S. studies showing speeding is the direct cause of only 4% of all accidents and, despite publicity over drunk driving, that unacceptable behaviour directly sparks only 7% of crashes.

The latest Alberta stats say drunk drivers were a contributing factor in less than 3% of all injury accidents and 13.7% of all fatal accidents in 2008.

"If speed causes 3% to 4% of crashes, somebody might ask why there's all the emphasis on speed enforcement," he said.

"Could it be because you want to generate revenue?"

Baxter correctly points out statistics can often be misleading or taken out of context by some people when it comes to the issues of speeding and drunk driving.

That's not to say we shouldn't continue to make drunk driving socially unacceptable. If only one person is killed annually by a drunk, that's one person too many.

But if we truly want to make roads safer let's target the biggest problem -- distracted drivers and plain bad drivers.

After all, driver error is listed as a contributing factor in 90% of all crashes in Alberta -- and that's a stat we can't ignore.

KERRY.DIOTTE@SUNMEDIA.CA

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/columni ... 6-sun.html

[yvanddivans]

Thank you discovery channel!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIrC6ejEqqo

[Jastapilot]

makes sense to me

[Wilbur]

Accident rate statistics are twisted by every special interest group to make any case they want to make. I don't think there has ever been any research done that controlled for all the variables involved in traffic accidents. Number of cars on the road, the reasons behind differences in traffic volume, trends in types of vehicles on the road, improved handling/brakinig technology, improved crashworthiness, condition of roads, location and type of road, enforcement levels, accident vs fatality rates, etc, etc. Not to mention, how do you define speeding? Driving faster than the posted limit, or driving faster than is safe for the conditions? Using the later, trying to drive 20kph in traffic with a prevailing speed of 15kph could be seen as speeding even though you are still 30kph below the posted limit. There are, however, a couple things regarding speed that are certain constants. The faster you're going, the less time you have to react. The faster you're going, the greater the energy involved in a collision.

As a factor in the overall accident rate, I would expect speed in excess of the posted limit to be minimally important as most accidents happen in parking lots, bumper to bumber gridlock, traffic jammed intersections, etc where there is no real opportunity for speed over the limit to be a factor. But what influence would speed have if looking only at situations where higher speeds could happen such as main arterial routes, secondary and primary highways, etc? I would bet speed is a significant influence in those situations where speeding over the limit is possible.

I read a survey stat a few years back (can't remember where) that said 80% of drivers rated their driving ability as above average.

[200hr Wonder]

You speed alone is not really a problem. Speed limits are set on data that is over 50 years old that takes into account road design an car design. Cars and road have both seen vast improvements in 50 years! Cars handle better, have better traction in all weather conditions than 50 years ago. Same goes for roads, modern technology has made smoother roads with banked curves much easier to build. Now traffic volumes have increased as well. So does doing 130 or 140 km/h on the Trans Canada in day light through the prairies on a good section of road with light traffic pose a significant increase in risk than doing the posted 100 km/h? More than likely not. Does doing 100 km/h down Highway 91 in Vancouver in rush hour where everyone else is doing 100 as well? No in fact I would say going the posted 80 is more dangerous! It is the idiot going 110 and weaving in and out of traffic that is at issue. But keeping the speed limit artificially low and randomly busting people doing 100 like the above example keeps the coffers full. I have seen a lot of accidents nearly caused by the cop with radar gun causing everyone to slam on their breaks to slow down. What we need is suggested limits and enforcement of the traffic weavers, cell phone talkers, and so on and throw the book at them!

[Icebound]

...

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.

There have been serious USA national medical studies that come up with this conclusion:

quote:

Nationwide restriction of speed limits to 65 mph or less will save almost 3,000 lives every year.

:unquote

http://www.ajsfulltextonline.com/articl ... 6/abstract


Try as you might, you cannot repeal physics. You travel that much farther within your reaction time at 120 compared to 90.. That much further to hit something unexpected.

In fact, those wide open spaces where people drive the fastest is where the highest per-capita fatality rate happens to be:
http://www.roadsbridges.com/Wyoming-tra ... sPiece7677


Speed limits are not there necessarily for the "nothing-happening-here" type of day. They are there to give you more reaction time when something flies off a truck's load; when the guy in front of you swerves cause he is fighting a wasp in the cockpit; when the mother spent a second too long checking on her strapped-in child and is drifting into your lane.

You can call these "bad" drivers if you want, but these are the everyday realities. So speed limits are there to mitigate everyday reality.

Even wide-open Wyoming eventually recongnized that reality.


...

[Rockie]

People who speed are driving badly which makes them bad drivers. The title of this thread is an inane comment akin to saying it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the bottom.

[Invertago]

Don't like how I drive???? Get off the damn side walk!!!

[Doc]

Catching speeders is easier than catching folks running red lights, tailgating, failing to yield, pulling out in front of traffic, driving un road worthy vehicles, running cross walks etc. It's just easier, and therefore, it makes more money. That's the bottom line. Money.
Anyone who thinks a car on an open highway doing 15k over the posted limit, is as much of a threat as any of the above offenses is a twit.
I learned to drive in the '60's. The limits were usually 60 mph. Cars were loosely sprung. Tyres were bias ply. Seat belts were not required.
Today, speed limits are usually 50 mph (look up mph children) suspensions are vastly better. Tyres are in another league altogether. We have 27 airbags. Four wheel disc brakes. Mandatory harness systems.....speed is not the big problem out on the roads. Driver training is! My daughter just got her licence....it was all about how you PARK!
Lets actually TEST drivers.

[iflyforpie]

How many airbags are on your motorcycle Doc?

Sure cars are safer and handle and stop better than they did years ago, but it doesn't change the attentiveness of the driver or the vulnerability of pedestrians, cyclists, and bikers.

Around where I live, there is a lot of wildlife and anything above the posted limit increases the danger of hitting an animal exponentially. Hitting a moose or elk can kill you, and hitting any animal can cause you to lose control of the vehicle.

I am not saying I don't speed. I am usually ten to twenty over and under certain circumstances will go quite a bit over. But I understand the risk I am taking and if I get busted, I deserve the lecture and the ticket that follows.

[Hedley]

People who speed are driving badly which makes them bad drivers

That's exactly why I don't bother watching F1
anymore - I realized that all those race car drivers
who drive over 200 mph are driving badly which
makes them bad drivers

Speeding tickets are just another form of tax.

I can prove it to you. Whenever someone has
an accident, rarely do they lose their driver's
licence, nor are they required to attend remedial
driver's school, to improve their driving ability.

If people really cared about accidents, the
above would happen. It doesn't, and they don't.

The government doesn't care if you crash, as
long as the tax dollars keep flowing in for them
to spend.

[200hr Wonder]

...

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.

There have been serious USA national medical studies that come up with this conclusion:

quote:

Nationwide restriction of speed limits to 65 mph or less will save almost 3,000 lives every year.

:unquote

http://www.ajsfulltextonline.com/articl ... 6/abstract


Try as you might, you cannot repeal physics. You travel that much farther within your reaction time at 120 compared to 90.. That much further to hit something unexpected.

In fact, those wide open spaces where people drive the fastest is where the highest per-capita fatality rate happens to be:
http://www.roadsbridges.com/Wyoming-tra ... sPiece7677


Speed limits are not there necessarily for the "nothing-happening-here" type of day. They are there to give you more reaction time when something flies off a truck's load; when the guy in front of you swerves cause he is fighting a wasp in the cockpit; when the mother spent a second too long checking on her strapped-in child and is drifting into your lane.

Well then you are too close to said truck, bad driving, Then you are too close to the other car. I was taught to never drive beside someone unless I had to. Again you are driving beside someone too close. Keep right except to pass could really help the other 2 you mentioned. You would be behind them at a safe distance and it would not be an issue.

You can call these "bad" drivers if you want, but these are the everyday realities. So speed limits are there to mitigate everyday reality.

Even wide-open Wyoming eventually recongnized that reality.


...

I would bet that is because people where out driving the road conditions. I do not need a speed sign to tell me how fast to go. The rural road to the main highway here has an 80km speed limit. This is correct about 10% of the time! During the day there are some strait stretches with wide open clearways on either sides that a safe speed is closer to 100. During dusk as it gets to night the safe speed for me goes down to closer to 60 because of the Moose and other wildlife. The windy sections are even slower during the day. Lets not even talk about when it starts to ice up and snow. My point is that the speed limit changes ALL THE TIME and is at times much slower than what is safe and more often than not faster than what is safe. As for statistics, well I take them with a grain of salt. If they want them to make it sound like speed was the sole factor in these accidents I bet they can. As for your Wyoming link, I would love to know how the stats break down in terms of road condition, vehicle condition, alcohol, speed, etc.

My point and I stand by it is that speed limits are really a cash grab and what is really dangerious is people out driving to the conditions, experience, there vehicle and yes this could include going above the posted speed limit, as well as going slower.

[Icebound]

...

... snip...

Try as you might, you cannot repeal physics. You travel that much farther within your reaction time at 120 compared to 90.. That much further to hit something unexpected.

In fact, those wide open spaces where people drive the fastest is where the highest per-capita fatality rate happens to be:
http://www.roadsbridges.com/Wyoming-tra ... sPiece7677


Speed limits are not there necessarily for the "nothing-happening-here" type of day. They are there to give you more reaction time when something flies off a truck's load; when the guy in front of you swerves cause he is fighting a wasp in the cockpit; when the mother spent a second too long checking on her strapped-in child and is drifting into your lane.

Well then you are too close to said truck, bad driving, Then you are too close to the other car. I was taught to never drive beside someone unless I had to. Again you are driving beside someone too close. Keep right except to pass could really help the other 2 you mentioned. You would be behind them at a safe distance and it would not be an issue.

That is precisely the point.

Occasionally "you have to". Occassionally somebody cuts into that "big" space you think you left yourself. Occasionally that is the only place he could go because he was being forced out of his lane by a merging truck. Sure, he should have expected it, but it doesn't alter the fact that your speed is now too high for the space you have.

You can call these "bad" drivers if you want, but these are the everyday realities. So speed limits are there to mitigate everyday reality.

Even wide-open Wyoming eventually recongnized that reality.


...

I would bet that is because people where out driving the road conditions. I do not need a speed sign to tell me how fast to go. The rural road to the main highway here has an 80km speed limit. This is correct about 10% of the time! During the day there are some strait stretches with wide open clearways on either sides that a safe speed is closer to 100.

...

Do you really believe that?.

There is NO "safe speed".

A "safe" speed is maybe zero while inside your home fortress, and maybe not even then.

There is only a "acceptable" speed which is a compromise between our impatience and the probability of injury. We may argue over where that line is, and it may be different for the two of us....

But the record is pretty clear that the higher that speed is, the higher the probability of injury. Even on a rural low-traffic road.

A posted speed of 100 produces some people driving near 100, some doing 110 because they rarely enforce that, quite a few doing 120, because they only enforce that once in a while in dry conditions, and a few who don't care. Move that up by 10k, and if everybody moves their real speeds up by 10, you will get more fatalities. Move it down and you will get less.

That is the reality.

My point and I stand by it is that speed limits are really a cash grab and what is really dangerious is people out driving to the conditions, experience, there vehicle and yes this could include going above the posted speed limit, as well as going slower.

That argument has nothing to do with the safety of speed.

That argument is about Enforcement choosing easy targets. There is no question that speeders are among the easier traffic violations to enforce and are probably targeted as a result.

But that is a quite different discussion.


...

[iflyforpie]

I have never been given a ticket while going less than 20 over the limit. I've had cops pass me going the other direction while I was going more than 20 over. I had a cop follow me as I was going ten over yesterday.

My point is, most decent cops won't bother you if you are driving for the conditions; like keeping up with the flow of traffic (remember when a bunch of people decided to get together and do the speed limit on the 401 a few years ago?), not weaving in and out traffic or passing dangerously, slowing down in residential areas and giving way to cyclists.

Driving dangerously is a subjective thing to enforce. However, being over the limit is a hard number that can be used to punish an aggressive or negligent driver (like the A-hole Albertan in a Ferrari that passed me on a windy double solid because 120 wasn't fast enough ).

My $0.05

[Hedley]

I have never been given a ticket while going less than 20 over the limit

I guess you're just lucky. In recent years, I have received
tickets for 97 kph in an 80 kph, and 60 kph in a 50 kph.

I have no problem with the tickets (or the demerit points) -
after all, those were the speeds I was travelling - but it really
pisses me off that the insurance companies ratchet up the
rates because of it.

Every $100 worth of tickets I receive costs me around $1000
in increased insurance premiums in the years to come.

I have often wondered if traffic policemen receive commissions
from insurance companies. They ought to - they are working
for them.

[iflyforpie]

Oh, I forgot. I drive two 20+ year old Volvos. How many of those tickets were in the Lambo or the bike?

It's nice here in BC because the insurance rates don't change with tickets, only with at-fault accidents.

[Icebound]

Every $100 worth of tickets I receive costs me around $1000
in increased insurance premiums in the years to come.

Being good corporate citizens that they are, I am sure that insurance companies would like to ding the unsafe drivers more than the rest of us.

And, of course, the argument can rage over whether there is a correlation between "he speeds" and "he is unsafe".

But Pilots are taught the "Five Hazardous Attitudes" early in their training. If those were applied to driving... and given the reality that the probability of injury increases with speed on the road... then speeders can be said to exhibit at least 3 and maybe as many as all 5 of them.

Thus it becomes an easy connection for insurance companies to make.

An "easy target", just like for enforcement...


...

[Icebound]

It's nice here in BC because the insurance rates don't change with tickets, only with at-fault accidents.

Socialist Alert!!!! Government state insurance!!! BAD BAD BAD!!!!


...

[iflyforpie]

.

But Pilots are taught the "Five Hazardous Attitudes" early in their training. ...

What are those? Seriously... I could probably figure them out, but I never learned them.

[Icebound]

.

But Pilots are taught the "Five Hazardous Attitudes" early in their training. ...

What are those? Seriously... I could probably figure them out, but I never learned them.

[ edit ] Better here, about 2/3 down:


http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2006/8083-25-chap16.pdf


...

[Hedley]

This is moronic. Why try to predict a driver's record?
Why not just use the driver's actual record?

If he hasn't had an accident in the last 10 years, he
probably won't have one this year.

If he's had 10 accidents in the last 10 years, he probably
will have one this year.

This is not rocket science. Who cares how someone
drives, as long as he's safe?

Once you see through the empty rhetoric, you realize
it isn't about safety - it's about taxation, and nanny
state controlling.

[iflyforpie]

.

But Pilots are taught the "Five Hazardous Attitudes" early in their training. ...

What are those? Seriously... I could probably figure them out, but I never learned them.

[ edit ] Better here, about 2/3 down:


http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2006/8083-25-chap16.pdf


...

Actually, the fogs are clearing and I am now remembering them from my instructor rating. Never learned them before that and at the time it had me wondering how many times I was one of those types during my PPL and CPL.

I will agree, a tax grab to a certain extent.

I often wonder what would happen if everybody slowed down to the speed limit so they couldn't issue tickets. Would the force be re-tasked to stopping real criminals? Reduced to save taxpayers? Or simply become even more petty and issue you a ticket for surface rust or improper wheel alignment?

[Icebound]

This is moronic. Why try to predict a driver's record?
Why not just use the driver's actual record?

If he hasn't had an accident in the last 10 years, he
probably won't have one this year.

If he's had 10 accidents in the last 10 years, he probably
will have one this year.

This is not rocket science. Who cares how someone
drives, as long as he's safe?

Once you see through the empty rhetoric, you realize
it isn't about safety - it's about taxation, and nanny
state controlling.

Private - enterprise Insurance Companies have now become a nanny state????


...

[Jastapilot]

this guy wasn't going all that fast. I snapped this picture today.

[bandaid]

Well if my 29 years as a paramedic has taught me anything it is that speed in combination with numerous factors ie: age, alcohol and drugs, cell phone use, eating, putting on make up, shaving.... ect, and people die horrible deaths.
I do agree that there are just a bunch of bad drivers of both genders out there that push Darwins rules daily with their driving habits it is a good thing that speed limits exist and are enforced.