Re: Totally OT - Highway Question - Is 100 Metres Enough

[Dave Fawthrop]

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote: |!> On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:04:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: |!> |!> |!> |!If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS. |!> |!the roads would be a far safer place. |!> |!> In reality *both* happen. |!> Small fine and a few points for speeding which *may* cause an accident. |!> Bigger fine and more points if you *do* cause an accident by speeding. |! |!Nobody ever caused an accident by speeding on its own.

Some years ago I was driving at under the speed limit of 30mph and two six year old boys, seated on a skateboard, appeared from an absolutely blind

1in7 side road, doing one hell of a speed, directly in front of me. Had I been speeding they would have both have been dead, as it was they were only kept in hospital overnight.

How do you stop "boys being boys" and getting killed except by sticking to speed limits.

[Clive George]

I'd assign the blame to the one on the main road in that case. If he can't stop within 15m from 15mph, either his driving or his car is severly defective.

clive

[Andy Hall]

Had you been closer, they would also have been dead.

The speed is not the cause, but only a factor in the outcome as this example clearly demonstrates.

The speed limit is an arbitrary 50km/h. If it were made 60km/h there would be statistically more deaths and if it were made 40km/h there would be less.

So it's a matter of trade off between location, use and risk. But in none of these cases is speed the *cause* of the accident, only a factor.

In your example, the *cause* of the accident was the boys using the skateboard inappropriately, or perhaps their parents for letting them do it.

[Andy Hall]

Probably. I chose an example to illustrate the point rather than calling up TRL and asking them for the stopping distance of a Mondeo on the specific road surface with a weight of 20kg in the back and three passengers totalling 200kg on a damp Thursday morning in April.

The point is that one can be well within the speed limit and people can do stupid and unexpected things for which it is not possible to guarantee that there won't be an accident. It is not reasonable to then hold the driver on the main road to blame.

In the particular example originally given, there should at least be warning signs on the main road, or if the junction is so bad for visibility, traffic lights.

[Autolycus]

This takes a very narrow view of "severity" and a very tightly-defined accident. In real life, cars don't always run head-on into concrete blocks: they hit odd shaped objects with strangely projecting bits at funny angles, and they do things like flipping onto their roofs if certain dynamic criteria are met. If my car runs into a road sign at 10 mile/h, I'll probably survive, as I probably would at 40 mile/h. But which would be the more severe accident?

An imperfect, inattentive, or foolish driver (obviously not a reader of this group) suddenly realise you are stationary, in front of him and

100ft away when he starts braking. At 48 mile/h, he taps your back bumper: at 55 mile/h, he's still doing 25 mile/h when he hits you. Which is the more severe accident?

[Roger]

The message from "Autolycus" contains these words:

But at 55mph he would be less likely to be unaware of his surroundings. Driving needs to be sufficiently stimulating to keep the driver alert and concentrating on the job in hand, rather than the scenery, how he is going to make his mother-in-laws death look like an accident or whatever.

[Roger]

The message from "Andy McKenzie" contains these words:

You are confusing speeding with excessive speed. Speeding is exceeding the speed limit. Excessive speed is driving too fast for the conditions and your examples have absolutely nothing to do with speeding.

Judging what is a safe speed for the conditions is something drivers should be doing constantly but the nanny state has decreed that the law abiding driver will get very little chance to do that except in seriously inclement weather or on twisty single track roads where 30 mph could be far too fast.

[nightjar]

He probably curses the Trilby Hat who pottered out in front of him without allowing for the speed of approaching traffic.

Colin Bignell

[Stuart Noble]

Haven't read all this, but this is the place for motoring law

[dennis]

So assuming there are warning signs for a blind entrance/exit is it now the fault of the driver on the main road for driving too fast?

Why should he need warning signs? Is he driving too fast for the conditions?

[Andy Hall]

If he isn't exceeding the speed limit and there are no other signs or visual clues then no.

There can be blind entrances and turnings with no visual clues at all. If these represent a hazard, then they should be appropriately signed, keeping in mind that if there are too many, people will have information overload and not notice them as much.

It's all too easy to lay blame in connection with speed, but reducing speed *may* simply serve to reduce the frequency and severity of accidents. On this basis, one could argue for reducing the speed to zero and not having motorised transport at all. Clearly that's not acceptable.

So what does one do? Reduce all speed limits by 20km/h? Statistically, that would reduce accidents and their results because people would have more time to react and would not collide with as much force. Reduce limits by 30 km/h and the effect would be even greater.

Where does one draw the line on that? If people are going to drive carelessly, they will do. Where that is the situation and an accident is caused, the prosecution should be for the accident, as TNP says, not for the speed, unless they were exceeding the limit.

The rules need to be as crisp as possible, which is the whole reason for speed limits in the first place.

[dennis]

The cause was two boys going too fast to stop. Speed was the primary cause as it is in most collisions.

[dennis]

So its OK to ignore warning signs then.

Are the warning lines in the midle of the road adequate rather than clutering the place with more signs? (Hands up those of you that don't know what I am talking about.)

[Andy Hall]

No; and I didn't say it was.

These are an indicator regarding crossing of the centre line. They are used both when roads bend and when they undulate. Neither is necessarily an indicator of a blind turn.

Have you put your own hand up?

[Andy Hall]

Oh, FFS.

It is *not* a cause, it is simply a contributory factor.

Had they been going faster, they would have crossed the road earlier and you wouldn't have hit them.

Had the driver been there a few seconds earlier, he would have killed them anyway regardless of the speed of either.

[dennis]

You said it wasn't his fault if there were no other signs. How many does it take to make it his fault?

They are known as hazard warning lines and are there to warn of hazards.. Do you have your hands up?

Why?

[Andy Hall]

That's the whole point. It doesn't.

You can have as many signs, natural clues, etc. as well as opinions on whether or not somebody was going too fast as you like. It doesn't alter the outcome.

Unless there is a speed limit in place and the driver has exceeded it, the rest becomes a matter of opinion.

Continuous white lines are warning lines but don't indicate that there may be other hazards.

No need.

Not worked it out yet?

[judith]

So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say

20mph there would not be fewer accidents?

[judith]

Just because you are driving within the speed limit does not mean that you cannot be driving *too* fast. If as you say there was a blind spot, then obviously you should reduce your speed accordingly and if you hit something around the blind spot then you would most likely be driving too fast for the road/conditions.

[judith]

The driver of the car going at 15mph.

There would be something wrong with his reaction times or his brakes or 15mph was too fast for the road conditions if he could not stop in

15m