Why should "Speed" kill? Why just focus on speed and generalize it?

Question

In the UK, you often here a phrase called "Speed kills". In other countries you never hear this sentence and on display boards is says "Reckless driving kills" instead. This would mean, the faster cars drive, the more accidents there are - this is generalising to much and can be proved to be wrong. This would produce a graph where the speed is on the x-axis and the number of accidents on the y-axes that shows a linear graph. The result is only representative however, if only speed is the factor not other related parameters. Statistics on German motorways show less accidents at speeds between 100-120 mph then 70-80 mph.
On country roads, the graph looks different of course.
If you draw a graph that shows safety distance versus accidents, you see a more linear graph. Generalising is always too easy. Reducing accidents by reducing speed limits does not solve the actual problem, which is aggressive driving, unsafe cars/tyres/breaks, untrained drivers and alcohol.

Answer 1

There is an inverse relationship to the chance of you surviving an accident and speed.

Speed is only one factor in accidents, but if you are doing 100 and the lady talking on the cell phone pulls out in front of you, you're far more likely to take the dirt nap then if you were doing 50.

As this is true the expression speed kills is accurate

Speed may or may not cause the accident but it is a huge factor in the probability that you will survive the accident.

Answer 2

@Lord Kitchener Useless comment, sorry
@Jerry D Picking up a cell phone is a matter of unsafe driving.
The safety distance depends on the speed you are driving. So it does not matter whether you drive 100 or 50 as far as the case is concerned where you need to break due to someone in front of you.
@kari g People should not always accept all laws and always questions why things are the way they are and whethe they always make absolutely sense or not.
@Starfox If you refer to the motorway, there are not supposed to be children playing

Most accidents occur in stop-and-go traffic jams at walking-speeds, or at any speed where people need to break but did not keep the safety distance. Instead of speed cameras, safety-distance cameras should be used...even at speed of 60 or 70 mph people drive insanely sometimes due to driving too close to other cars.

I also think this phrase makes people concentrate on the speed alone although more lifes could be saved if driving tests, the condition of cars etc. would be examined more closely.

I think, in the UK accidents would go down if the speed limit was raised to the France/Holland etc. level. (I dont think no speed limit like in Germany was not possible here as nobody would be used to it.) The reason: When people have the feeling they could go a little faster and still be safe, they do not respect the speed limits.

If they have no speed limit (as a contrast) people know they need to use their instincts and common sense more and adapt their speed to the road. If there is a speed limit people will always try to drive the top speed that is allowed, ignoring the road condition.
Therefore, governments try to lower the speed limit so that people are safe even on the most dangerous parts of a motorway and at the most dangerous weather condition. As people always drive faster they lower the speed limit even more so that the speed limit is slightly lower then the fastest possible speed at the most dangerous part of the motorway.

It would be too complicated to put up thousands of different speed limit signs for different road segments....so the lowest speed is taken.

In theory there would be different speed limits for different parts of the road at different weather conditions, different driver experiences and different cars. With some cars you can easily loose control in curves and they need a long distance when applying the brakes. Other cars only need a fifth of the distance to stop and hardly ever loose control in curves....but not everyone is driving those cars...so the same speed limit for everyone, every car and every road is introduced...causing some people to go faster then others that also often drive more aggressively. Therefore driving fast is associated with dangerous driving.

Answer 3

This question is horrible. Yes speed kills. Like Jerry D said, getting in a wreck at 100 mph you're more likely to die than at 50 mph. Another thing to consider is that when you are going fast your situational awareness drops significantly and you somewhat suffer from tunnel vision (not a black tunnel, just not noticing the things to the side of you). Tunnel vision, less time to react, lower situational awareness, higher speeds/faster impact, and if you throw alcohol into it multiply all that by a thousand. Ya, speed kills. Oh, and you're argument that "more wrecks happen at 70-80 miles per hour than 100-120" is bogus. Thats because more people drive 70-80 mph. Even in europe. Besides, there are way to many variables to get an accurate statistic on that sort of thing (yes most traffic "agencies" make these crap statistics but you can make statistics say whatever you want).

Answer 4

It's not speed on motorways it's excessive speed in built up areas. There is no doubt if everyone drove at 30 mph, or less, everywhere there would be less accidents, but everything would be terribly slow, and boring. Road deaths is the price we pay to drive fast.

Answer 5

Here here. I couldn't have said it better myself. Obviously speed is A factor, but it's used as a scapegoat. There are a number of incompetent drivers out there that are far more dangerous than any speedster. After half a bottle of Whiskey I am more fit to drive than some people are stone cold sober. So why are these people on the roads?

Answer 6

If we all stood still didnt drive, fly or ride trains their would be far less accidents.

In your analysis you left out stupid people that walk out in the road in front of cars, children who are allowed out on their own without being taught how to cross roads, use roads safely and in many cases do not have adequate lights (if any at all) on their cycles.

Another factor is people who have no respect for the laws of this country in the way they drive and also the way they park (if you can call it that) their vehicles (too close or even across juctions). Probably the same people who dump their rubbish illegaly outside someone els's house instead of taking it to the dump.

Starfox

Answer 7

The term speeds kills refers to the survivability of the crash. The faster you go the less likely you are to survive the resulting impact in a crash. As far as your German statistics, the roadways there are made for high vehicular speed and the drivers are better trained. We Americans, myself included, tend to make our cars an extintion of our home/officer and multitask while driving. We eat, drink ,talk on the phone, ect, while trying to drive. When is the last time you saw a $100,000 Porshe with cup holders???

Go to http://nhtsa.dot.gov and click on traffic safety to see for your self

Answer 8

Speed doesn't kill. slow kills. Our major roads are designed for traffic to travel in excess of 70 mph. Drivers still exhibit the faults you list, though and many accidents are caused by people taking dangerous chances to get around slow inattentive people on cell phones. Where I live you can get a license if you have a pulse.

Answer 9

the problem is not just speed it is reckless driving. I have seen too many people who just dont care about the rules of the road and have put themselves and everyone around them in danger and then decide to blame everyone else. The rules are there for a reason but some people think they are there to annoy them!
It is too easy to tax a car with false insurance details etc.!!!

Answer 10

What really kills is the unpredictability of other drivers and the conditions. Problem is that people and cars should be ranked somehow that ones with different skills and equipment could use different driving strategy - the flipside just is that they'd still all share the same roads.