Absolutely, speed may be a factor in loss of control and I'm sure that they'll have accounted for this in the "excessive speed" stats, but the point I was making (and which andyb seems unable to grasp) is that the government's own figures do not back up the assertion that they make regarding speeding when it comes to the implementation of speeding controls vis a vis cameras.

Don't discount steering failure or mechanical failure, tyres, brakes, stuck throttle, best drive at walking pace..........just in case ya need to jump clear:D

Loss of control can be due to lack of skill and experience, get two people to drive on the same skid pan at 30 MPH, one spins off the other other doesn't nowt to do with speed.

Ray.

Speed is easily measured and can be objectively recorded - lack of observation is not something than can easily be either measured or proven.

Hence if the only thing you can measure is speed, that is what any prosecutions/judgement will be based.

Actually now that you mention it, I'm far better than i think.................









but i don't think a lot....................







and i've never reached my better side anyway.............







This is of course a light hearted reply just in case anyone has a sense of humour failure.

As a police instructor said to me once limits are set for the lowest common denominator, and that can be pretty low in many cases, but everyone thinks they're well above that level.

Of course....but again...that's not the point of the post.

Let's assume that the stats are accurate because the government does when it comes to using them to justify safety measures they implement....they're the best tool we have available for all parties. The authorities justify speed cameras and the clampdown on speeding on the basis that their figures support the assertion that speeding kills - well, it looks like this is not the case when the figures are looked at.

What we need is a truly independent and qualified inspection of these figures.

....a point which twpd is struggling to grasp.......;)

No. Not at all. You seem totally incapable of understanding that just because one factor can be more easily measured it does not mean it is the main contributing factor. The the main tenet of my argument being that the government's figures do not support their argument and therefore their whole argument and the basis upon which it is made is fallacious. If you'd like more help in understanding this very simple point I can write this is large letters and simple words. ;)

Give this some thought.

SPEED = CASH in the pots of the goverment = TAX

Well now, if there's a question to start a riot.
As most bods on here know I stuffed into the side of a car Oct last year.
Consequence of that was, I was put on the DIP as you also know.
Got tested by grade 1 ex-bike cop (he left the feds because he was sick to death of chasing targets and not the **** driving he was observing- quote). I was assessed as 80% exceptional and 20% consistently good. Moreover I didn't ride any differently the days I was on the course than I do normally.
I still class myself as an average driver, but treat everyone else on the road as a complete driving no hoper until I know better.
I learned that the hard way. Observation does NOT help you when you've looked once decided they have seen you because they are stopping, and are not going to move further, so you look for the next hazard and the blo*dy fool changes their mind then drives across you, especially when you've got the green light. Who got done, the bloke on two wheels of course. Did you expect any other outcome?

Ains.

Far too many variables to ever get a definitive answer IMHO.

Assume nothing question everything. Having done a bit of number crunching in the public sector the first thing an old cynic like me asks is what do ya want to prove with these numbers. Any number cruncher can use the same data to either support or debunk any given theory with "variable" factors at work or known unknowns if ya like.

With the KSI stats the variables are improvements in vehicle safety, the variable of average speed of impacts ( maybe brought down by rigerous enforcement or maybe just more congestion reducing speeds generally), the success of safety campaigns like THINK, and so on, The more inventive might even say that the species has evolved so that we can survive accidents better!!

What I am saying is that the govt make the links they want to, in the absence of a "control".

There is no threshold speed at which an accident becomes inevitable, that is the crux of the matter. All speed does is make the consequences of another event, collision, accident or whatever you like to call it more serious.
This is the concept that some organisations have failed to grasp fully.

Yes, we all want to reduce the potential consequences of speed but there the arguement arises of how far do you go, and what about making efforts to remove the potential consequences completely by removing some of the factors and events that are causation.

Speed + Collision = consequences related to speed ( laws of Physics apply)

Speed + no collision = no consequences. ( simple equation)

The govt go for the easy option that brings in the cash, not the expensive option such as education, better training, better infrastructure.

Nurse...............me blood pressure tablets,

Ray.