remember when the poster campagain was:
@ 20 mph 1 - 20 are killed @ 40 mph 1 - 20 survive
?now they are saying that:
@ 40 there is a 20% chance of survival @ 30 there is only a 20% chance of dying
?why are they different?
Simple.
They make it up as they go along.
becuase 83.5% of statistics are made up on the spot.
83.4%
According to them, over a third of accidents are "speed related". So using theitr own logic 2/3rds of accidents are caused by people who were not speeding.
Obviously then speeding is hugely safer... Stats work both ways.
I'm sure it's 83.4987120387130947091734097130497109327409138724091732409%.
Fraser
PS the more decimal places in a statistic the more likely it is to be believed.
I tried this once when the local BRAKE bods were trying to get support in Warrington town centre. I could see them sharpening of pitch forks, smell smoke, hear "burn the heretic, burn him, burn him" being mumbled at the back of their little caravan.
Heh!
Those of you who know me well know what I believe about speeding.
Will also understand why I have had many a conversation or open discussion about the irrelevance of statistics showing that the more safety cameras, the safer the roads, or that speed kills, or that speed bumps save lives.
Speed bumps are a menace, safety cameras result in panic braking leading up to it, and speed never kills - it's the sudden stop.
That reminds me of something on local radio recently - about the latest police initiative to prevent young drivers having as many accidents. They said something along the lines of 30% of accidents are caused by drivers under 25. To me that says that 70% of accidents are caused by drivers over
25.
What a crock of shit. In that case, there'd be next to no accidents above say 50MPH.
it's a good read and statiscs can prove everything :)
Again you prove you dont understand much.
Well 30 mph is a common speed limit while 20 isn't.
And these figures are only a guide - not 100% accurate. They're designed to make you think on.
Before either makes sense you'd need to know the relative numbers of each group.
But its really not so simple. because because while its true that its more likely to kill the faster we travel its also true that if all the speed limits were raised that there would be less traffic at any given time, and that each driver spends less time driving on each journey. So while the accident may be less serious it would be more likely. Then there is relative speed... The pedestrian walks out in front at 3mph, but cant get as far into the road before you pass if you travel faster. And the fact that the biggest factor in car accidents is traffic density, rising massively as traffic levels increase. And the awareness and skill thing.... Driving faster keeps you alert and looking for danger, thats another reason that the majority of accidents happen in towns at low speeds.
Simply not true given the average speeds in towns are nowhere near 30 anyway.
So 100 mph would be a good idea in town?
Total rubbish. Driving at higher speeds than normal may keep the concentration up on some roads, as it's needed for self preservation. Make the limit 40 in towns and most would still drive around half asleep or talking on their phone, etc.
Towns are where people live, and pedestrians abound. Motorists have exclusive use of motorways, so why not extend the same sort of privilege to pedestrians in town - at least by giving them half a chance?
If the majority of motorists etc behaved responsibly in towns as regards speed and concentration, there'd be no need for speed bumps etc. But the majority don't, since *they're* not in much danger at those speeds.
But they would rise if the speed limit was higher in many towns, not everyone lives in gridlock you know! There are loads of long straight roads around here where 30 feels stupid.
In odd places. Mostly not of course.
Some. Some not.
Yep, thats why they have pavements!
Motorists have
Pavements??? As soon as they pay road tax and are insured against causing accidents then they can walk about on the roads freely. In some countries its already illegal to wander around on the road, and you have to cross in designated places and if you ask me thats far more sensible. Keeping pedestrials seperate from road traffic is defo safer!
well
67.979475894375894390234674386542367564389634829563845748306734289678934276278621439564367831 or people know that is bullshit :)
huh? you can drive from 17 onwards so the proportion of drivers who are under 25 is going to be much higher as an age but when you consider there may be lots more people who are under 25 than over who drive, you can skew the statistics the other way too
you are more than twice as likely to be involved in an accident when you are over 25 than when under
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.