Glenn, you touched on one of my pet peeves. In Queensland, the current
slogan is "Every k over kills" - catchy, huh?
But my Honda has been to the repairers 8 times -
My wife caught the front spoiler on a foot-high post in a car park - twice!
I scratched the rear bumper on a low wall in our driveway.
Banged from behind going round a corner at maybe 20kmh by a tailgater.
Banged from behind on a straight road at 15 kmh approaching traffic lights.
Reversed into while stationary at lights
Reversed into while backing out of a car parking bay.
T-boned at 20 kmh in a car park by a driver leaving a parking spot.
Not one of these has happened because of speed!
On the other hand:
Tyre valve blew out at 135 kmh on a country road - no problem, cruised on
three wheels into a fortuitously -located service station only 80 metres
away. My nephews piled out, pit-stopped the car, we were away again in < 5
minutes. No damage excpet to tyre.
On the freeway, 110 kmh, motor-cyclist loses it and slides across 5 lanes.
Van in from of me starts doing the rhumba and winds up sideways on in the
median strip. Car behind me is standing on it's front wheels and the
driver's visibly having palpitations. No damage to anyone, including the
motor-cyclist.
Multiple times - blind man alongside me changes lanes - I must be invisible,
'cos he wants my space, and he ain't gonna let my being there stop him
having it
John Coyle
Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com)
Brisbane, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:33 PM
Subject: Even further OT and a rant to boot (Re: OT: Speed cameras (Re: taxi
in motion))
> Even further OT because I'm not even going to mentioon the cameras...
>
> Bob W wrote:
> > I heard on the radio today, as I was speeding home from work, that
> > only about 7% of road accidents here are caused by the driver
> > speeding. I can't find anything on the BBC website to back this up.
> > But it's likely to cause a few more grumbles about the police
> > (mis)directing their efforts towards the motorist instead of going
> > after the real perps. Of course, the assumption there could be
> > unfounded: the drivers could still be the cause of the accident - but
> > not by speeding.
>
> I don't have a forest of data to refer to, but I spend enough
> time on the road that personal observation is not insignificant.
>
> Counting up the accidents and close calls that I've observed or
> been in, there have been very few in which speed was the only
> meaningful factor. If you allow me to exclude the stupid things
> I did before age 21, I think the number drops to zero or one.
>
> If you count the ones where speed was a _contributing_ factor
> to the accident or close call having occurred, you get a handful
> more, but if you really want to see lots of speed-related ones,
> you have to add in the ones where speed was not a factor in
> _causing_ the problem, but did make the consequences or potential
> _consequences_ _of_ the event worse.
>
> Of the ones where speed was part of the cause, about a third
> of those had all vehicles travelling below the posted speed
> limit. ("Too fast for conditions", but not exceeding the
> speed limit.) In my not-so-humble opinion, many of the rest
> were really due to "too fast for conditions" and not the fact
> that someone was over the posted limit.
>
> What _does_ cause most of the near-misses and collisions that
> I've seen?
>
> Failure to signal lane changes, often coupled with...
>
> Failure to check mirrors before lane changes
>
> Tailgating
>
> Inattention (it would've been a safe following distance
> if you'd noticed the brake lights when they came on)
>
> Failure to heed traffic control devices (stoplights,
> stop signs, roadway markings)
>
> Road rage (convenient that we have a name for it now),
> showing off, and "neither rule of law nor rule of
> ettiquette apply to me today because everybody should
> be able to read my mind and tell how much of a hurry
> I'm in right now".
>
> If the police made no other change than to shift all the effort
> they currently expend on catching speeders to catching tailgaters,
> that alone would make our highways far safer. If they also go
> after improper lane changes, intensely enough that people learn
> to be afraid to make those mistakes, the change would be amazing.
> Even if they dropped speed enforcement altogether on controlled-access
> highways to do so. (Speeding in residential areas and business
> districts might still need to be policed.)
>
> But speeding is extremely easy to _quantify_. It's easy to
> assign a number to, and it's easy to _measure_. So it's an
> easy ticket. It's all scientifical and stuff: "Your honor,
> the defendant was travelling at 86 MPH in a 65 MPH zone using
> RADAR." "That's 21 MPH over the posted speed, so it's one
> more point and a lot more money than it would've been at 84
> MPH. Guilty. Next!" (I exaggerate slightly, but just try
> to raise doubts about the measurement in traffic court and
> see how much like that it winds up sounding.) A scientific
> instrument generated a NUMBER which means it's _objective_
> and _mathematical_, whether that number is _meaningful_ or
> not (and without any question of the _precision_ of the
> number a lot of the time).
>
> Besides, the police (a majority of them in Maryland, not
> quite so many in northern Virginia or Pennsylvania) tailgate.
>
> If I get pulled over for 85 MPH on I-95 at 3:00 AM when there
> is nobody within five miles but me and the state trooper,
> it's the same mathematically assigned penalty -- the same
> violation -- as if I get pulled over at 85 MPH at 3:00 PM when
> that highway is starting to fill up for rush hour. Meanwhile,
> the fellow who tailgates me at a three-quarter of a second
> following distance at 75 MPH for four miles can do so right
> next to a cop at either hour, and he won't get pulled over for
> it. If he gets pulled over for something else, tailgating
> _might_ get added on, but he won't be pulled over _for_tailgating_.
> And the person who cuts me off without signalling, going 55 MPH
> while I'm doing the limit at 65, forcing me onto the shoulder
> because there's not enough room for me to avoid him with only
> my brake pedal, will only be charged for that if we actually
> collide.
>
> Now if I'm going 85 MPH when the slowpoke pulls out in front
> of me, speed is a factor. Not the only cause, but a factor.
> But if I'm doing the speed limit, he's still put me at risk,
> and excessive speed doesn't come into play. If you want
> funding for speed cameras and an excuse for writing more
> tickets, the number you cite is the number of accidents where
> "speed was a factor", not the number "caused by speeding".
> And most of the media, and most of the media's audience,
> won't notice the subtlety of the phrasing.
>
> They're "going after the low-hanging fruit". Speeding is an
> easy catch. Ignore the fact that on a clear, dry night with
> no other cars on the road, a driver in reasonable health
> and alert, a car in good working order, and a stretch of
> road where curves and hills don't obstruct the view ahead,
> driving even 110 MPH puts nobody at risk. (Unobstructed
> view a sufficient distance ahead for one's speed is, yes,
> an important detail.) Catching the tailgater and the improper
> lane changer requires a judgement call and then requires
> arguing about that judgement call in court. Catching the
> speeder, who may or may not be creating danger, is a matter
> of reading a number off the RADAR readout or the cruiser's
> speedometer. Instrument. Number. Bang.
>
> Or even easier, an unmanned device.
>
>
> And as long as I'm on the subject: two-seconds following
> distance, folks. The fact that it's rush hour doesn't
> change the laws of physics or the speed of biology (reaction
> time and the time it takes to actually press the brake once
> the motion has begun), so crowding a bit during rush hour
> isn't any safer than doing so at other times. Your being in
> a hurry doesn't change it either. Two seconds. If you're
> old enough to have learned the "car length for each ten
> miles per hour" rule, that works out to about the same
> distance unless the car you're measuring with is especially
> short or especially long.
>
> And I clearly should have gone to bed before now, so goodnight.
>
> -- Glenn
>
