Maybe there would be less motorcycle deaths if the our speed limits were reasonable

[Metastable]

Forum Sponsor

I know it is a bit of cause and effect scenario as opposed to an outright speed change, but there is a correlation. At the end of the day people driving too slow for a given area start to create a road hazard. And a few folks will probably come in here and say that the rider is the one to blame, but hey in the UK they are actually showing full on stats and they actually do engineering studies related to speed limits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029361/Speed-cameras-cut-accidents--create-study-finds.html

Speed cameras 'do not cut accidents'... they create them, study finds

By Jason Groves

Last updated at 7:46 AM on 24th August 2011


Many speed cameras have not cut accident rates and may even have increased them, figures reveal for the first time today.

Statistics published by the Department for Transport show many cameras have done little or nothing to improve accident rates, but have proved highly effective in clocking up speeding fines.

Only a small number of councils have agreed to publish the full data on each speed camera in their area.

Many speed cameras have not cut accident rates, figures show (a speed camera pictured on the A14 in Cambridgeshire)



But ministers will today urge all councils to follow suit – saying motorists have a right to know whether local speed cameras are justified.

Road safety minister Mike Penning said: ‘We are shining the light of transparency on the performance of speed cameras.

‘People want to know that if their tax money is being spent on speed cameras that they are actually making their roads safer, not just raising money.

‘They will now have the information to be able to hold their councils to account if they think that some cameras have actually made the situation worse, rather than better.’


A speed camera was erected on the A329 in Little Milton, Oxfordshire, in 1997 despite there being no collisions or casualties for five years.

Over the next five years there were five collisions and ten casualties.

In 2009, the camera caught just over 3,600 drivers breaking the 30mph limit.

A camera was installed on the A1134 Newmarket Road in Cambridgeshire in 1997 following five minor casualties.

Last year – when 1,027 drivers were caught breaking the 30mph speed limit – there were seven injuries, two of them serious.

Figures from 89 cameras in Humberside reveal that in 19 cases the number of pedestrian casualties is up since their introduction.

And a camera was installed on the A3060 in Dorset in 2002 following two minor collisions the previous year.

The following year – when 1,724 drivers were prosecuted for speeding – three people were injured.

 

[turbodish]

Except that the majority of motorcycle fatalities in Ontario tend to be single vehicle crashes involving loss of control, often on curves. It's kind of a stretch to suggest that going faster will lessen those types of crashes.

 

[Shaman]

And that is relevant...... how? Many of those crashes will be because of other vehicles in some way, not simply a rider letting go of the bars. No matter what the speed limit, it's unlikely that single vehicle crashes are going to change much.

 

[caboose56]

Except that the majority of motorcycle fatalities in Ontario tend to be single vehicle crashes involving loss of control, often on curves. It's kind of a stretch to suggest that going faster will lessen those types of crashes.

Didn't you post some stats about this recently? Something like 55% of them were single vehicle accidents?

If you could make a meaningful dent in reducing the other 45% of motorcycle accidents is that not worth some benefit? Further, it's not just motorcycles involved in these types of accidents. There is potential to decrease the number of cage-cage accidents too. There is no merit in that?

 

[beverage]

That's a similar trend to intersections where they've installed red light cameras. I've read several studies that indicate the accident rate at an intersection increases when they install red light cameras too because people will slam on their brakes in order to avoid running the light, resulting in more rear end collisions because the following people can't react and stop fast enough. Following too close, sure, but the fact remains that the accident rate increases.

 

[Shaman]

I've said this on this forum a dozen times and turbo has never had an actual counter for it other than biased reports from the police (hey, they like their jobs): anytime you increase congestion, you increase accidents. That's why accident rates go up when speed limits are low. This is the conclusion from many non-partisan studies and has been acted on by raising speed limits, by a number of countries and states/provinces with good results. Most notably Italy.

 

[turbodish]

If you could make a meaningful dent in reducing the other 45% of motorcycle accidents is that not worth some benefit? Further, it's not just motorcycles involved in these types of accidents. There is potential to decrease the number of cage-cage accidents too. There is no merit in that?

Except even among the remainder that are multi-vehicle crashes, about half of those are still due to rider error, usually losing control and then crashing into another vehicle by rear-ending them or crossing into the oncoming vehicle lane, etc. So now you have about 3 out of 4 rider crashes due to rider error.

Too many riders are already over-riding their abilities and not able to control their bikes at the current speeds they are travelling. Increasing the speed limit and by extension rider travelling speeds would not change that, and would in all probability cause more riders to go down. On top of that, with increased speeds would come increased crash forces at moment of impact, and the effect of that on a rider's relatively unprotected body should be obvious.

The same goes for car and truck drivers. Studies suggest that crash frequency rises with speed as drivers out-drive their ability to react in time to changing situations ahead of them, and as increased vehicle speed make it harder to brake or maneuver to avoid potential collisions. While actual increase in collision frequency may increase only marginally with incremental increases in speed, crash forces increase exponentially with that same increase. As a result, while the actual collision rate may increase only slightly with speed, the fatality rate does something else entirely.

You only have to see the Autobahn for that effect. While their collision rate per billion km travelled is only slightly above that of Ontario's 400-series highways, the corresponding fatality rate per billion km travelled is much higher. You are only slightly more likely to crash on the Autobahn, but if you have that crash you are far more likely to die because the potential crash forces are so much higher because of the higher speeds encountered.

Higher speeds here would mean higher crash forces to both car and rider. To the human body, those higher crash forces mean only one thing - greater potential for fatality, not less.

 

[Baggsy]

I know it is a bit of cause and effect scenario as opposed to an outright speed change, but there is a correlation. At the end of the day people driving too slow for a given area start to create a road hazard. And a few folks will probably come in here and say that the rider is the one to blame, but hey in the UK they are actually showing full on stats and they actually do engineering studies related to speed limits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029361/Speed-cameras-cut-accidents--create-study-finds.html

Speed cameras 'do not cut accidents'... they create them, study finds

By Jason Groves

Last updated at 7:46 AM on 24th August 2011


Many speed cameras have not cut accident rates and may even have increased them, figures reveal for the first time today.

Statistics published by the Department for Transport show many cameras have done little or nothing to improve accident rates, but have proved highly effective in clocking up speeding fines.

Only a small number of councils have agreed to publish the full data on each speed camera in their area.

Many speed cameras have not cut accident rates, figures show (a speed camera pictured on the A14 in Cambridgeshire)



But ministers will today urge all councils to follow suit – saying motorists have a right to know whether local speed cameras are justified.

Road safety minister Mike Penning said: ‘We are shining the light of transparency on the performance of speed cameras.

‘People want to know that if their tax money is being spent on speed cameras that they are actually making their roads safer, not just raising money.

‘They will now have the information to be able to hold their councils to account if they think that some cameras have actually made the situation worse, rather than better.’


A speed camera was erected on the A329 in Little Milton, Oxfordshire, in 1997 despite there being no collisions or casualties for five years.

Over the next five years there were five collisions and ten casualties.

In 2009, the camera caught just over 3,600 drivers breaking the 30mph limit.

A camera was installed on the A1134 Newmarket Road in Cambridgeshire in 1997 following five minor casualties.

Last year – when 1,027 drivers were caught breaking the 30mph speed limit – there were seven injuries, two of them serious.

Figures from 89 cameras in Humberside reveal that in 19 cases the number of pedestrian casualties is up since their introduction.

And a camera was installed on the A3060 in Dorset in 2002 following two minor collisions the previous year.

The following year – when 1,724 drivers were prosecuted for speeding – three people were injured.

How much slower would you consider reasonable?

 

[caboose56]

Except even among the remainder that are multi-vehicle crashes, about half of those are still due to rider error, usually losing control and then crashing into another vehicle by rear-ending them or crossing into the oncoming vehicle lane, etc. So now you have about 3 out of 4 rider crashes due to rider error.

Too many riders are already over-riding their abilities and not able to control their bikes at the current speeds they are travelling. Increasing the speed limit and by extension rider travelling speeds would not change that, and would in all probability cause more riders to go down. On top of that, with increased speeds would come increased crash forces at moment of impact, and the effect of that on a rider's relatively unprotected body should be obvious.

The same goes for car and truck drivers. Studies suggest that crash frequency rises with speed as drivers out-drive their ability to react in time to changing situations ahead of them, and as increased vehicle speed make it harder to brake or maneuver to avoid potential collisions. While actual increase in collision frequency may increase only marginally with incremental increases in speed, crash forces increase exponentially with that same increase. As a result, while the actual collision rate may increase only slightly with speed, the fatality rate does something else entirely.

You only have to see the Autobahn for that effect. While their collision rate per billion km travelled is only slightly above that of Ontario's 400-series highways, the corresponding fatality rate per billion km travelled is much higher. You are only slightly more likely to crash on the Autobahn, but if you have that crash you are far more likely to die because the potential crash forces are so much higher because of the higher speeds encountered.

Higher speeds here would mean higher crash forces to both car and rider. To the human body, those higher crash forces mean only one thing - greater potential for fatality, not less.

The Montana Paradox.

That is all.

 

[CanadianBiker]

Too many riders are already over-riding their abilities and not able to control their bikes...

And that right there is probably 90% of the problem and applies to cars as well.

 

[turbodish]

That's a similar trend to intersections where they've installed red light cameras. I've read several studies that indicate the accident rate at an intersection increases when they install red light cameras too because people will slam on their brakes in order to avoid running the light, resulting in more rear end collisions because the following people can't react and stop fast enough. Following too close, sure, but the fact remains that the accident rate increases.

Except that the nature and severity of crashes has changed, and with that so has the injury and fatality rates at red-light camera intersections. Instead of hard, high impact t-bone collisions in the middle of the intersection that have huge potential for major damage and personal injury/fatality, you have relatively minor, low speed differential rear end collisions with minimal property damage and potential for injury at the approaches to the intersection.

Cars and trucks do best at protecting occupants with head-on or rear-on collisions. That's a function of crush space and crumple zones built in a vehicle's fore and aft structures, as well as deployment space for air bags and seat belts. In most cars you simply don't have the same space for impact absorption when it comes to side impacts.

Even on a bike, I'd rather be rear-ended by a car that slightly misjudged its braking than be t-boned by a car that slightly misjudged its ability to make it through a red light.

ARLINGTON, VA — Red light cameras saved 159 lives in 2004-08 in 14 of the biggest US cities, a new analysis by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows. Had cameras been operating during that period in all large cities, a total of 815 deaths would have been prevented.

"The cities that have the courage to use red light cameras despite the political backlash are saving lives," says Institute president Adrian Lund.
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr020111.html

The study also included a literature review that gives credence to the notion -- put forward in other studies -- that red-light cameras might also lead to an increase in rear-end collisions. It also acknowledges many motorists regard the cameras as "revenue-generating schemes that violate drivers' privacy."

Nevertheless, the Winnipeg Police Service says the report backs up what they've been saying about red-light cameras for some time."We haven't been able to read the entire report, but the conclusions certainly support the (assertions) that we've been making for some time, that intersection safety cameras reduce the amount of speeding through intersections, they also reduce the number of right-angle collisions," said Staff Sgt. Mark Hodgson of the central traffic unit.​

"We accept some of the conclusions that there may be a slight increase in rear-end collisions but overall, when it reduces right-angle collisions and speeding through intersections, it certainly reduces injuries and fatalities."
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/red-light-cameras-cut-fatalities-report-115086749.html

 

[Metastable]

Too many riders are already over-riding their abilities and not able to control their bikes at the current speeds they are travelling. Increasing the speed limit and by extension rider travelling speeds would not change that, and would in all probability cause more riders to go down.

You don't REALLY believe this do you? Aside form multiple studies that have shown that accidents or traveling speeds do not rise proportionally to the speed increase if AT ALL (usually on these test roads the average speed was significantly higher than the post limit and people just kept going the speed they were comfortable with, except the slowpokes sped up causing less areas of congestion), ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is to keep the penalties the same for going X speed.

It should be simple here.
120-130kph on the highway
100 on rural roads
50 if you are going through a small group of homes in a hamlet or town, but back up to 100 once the farms start.

Other speeds in cities where appropriate.

It's the way MOST people drive anyway..... and what the limits are in most places around the world.

Oh and if you want to reduce crashes at red lights, stop putting them up, put in a roundabout .... can't do it everywhere, but they sure could use them a lot more in places like Derry Road in Milton or the Dundas rd through Oakville/Burlington or Hurontario between 407 - 403.

These roads once upon a time had few lights, now they are a synchronization disaster. OR... do it like Hamilton and have things timed right!

 

[invictus43]

There are so many different situations to neatly sum it up with the statement "There would be less motorcycle deaths if speed limits were reasonable". I would say driver and rider ability and attentiveness is probably the #1 cause of fatal accidents...speed limits would have little effect on that..

 

[promac]

How much slower would you consider reasonable?

If you ride a motorcycle, I don't see how your risk of crashing is unreasonably high if you're obeying the law ie not exceeding posted/suggested speed limits and riding at an appropriated rate of speed given the road conditions. In addition, most riders can manage much of the risk themselves. Riders need to manage and be accountable for their own actions and accept the added risks that they can't control. Motorcycles are inherently dangerous.

 

[invictus43]

It should be simple here.
120-130kph on the highway
100 on rural roads
50 if you are going through a small group of homes in a hamlet or town, but back up to 100 once the farms start.

Other speeds in cities where appropriate.

It's the way MOST people drive anyway..... and what the limits are in most places around the world.

No offence, but do you really believe that will make any difference?

 

[turbodish]

The Montana Paradox.

That is all.

People keep raising Montana without recognizing that Montana is a much different different place than Ontario from the standpoints of average travel distances, and both traffic and population densities.

Also, when you look at the actual numbers per KM travelled, Montana isn't all that safe a place to drive.

Fatality Incident Rates
The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calculates what it calls fatality incident rates by determining how many fatalities occur for every 100,000 miles driven.

Massachusetts and Rhode Island had the lowest incident rates, which were 0.76 and 0.80 respectively. Hawaii and Pennsylvania fell in the middle of this list, at 1.33 and 1.37 respectively.

And the highest on the list were, surprisingly, Louisiana and Montana. Louisiana had 2.17 fatalities per 100,000 miles driven and Montana had 2.45 fatalities per 100,000 miles driven in 2007.
http://www.theautoinsurance.com/traffic-fatalities-in-america/

 

[Metastable]

No offence, but do you really believe that will make any difference?

Yes I do. It will reduce aggressive passing maneuvers on country roads and take left lane bandits out of the passing lane on the highways or at least make them go with the current flow. So again, it will help to reduce stress levels on the highways and facilitate flow. You might get the odd guy that wants to go 150, but generally I think the majority of the population would keep going at the typical flow as opposed to the oddball that screws up traffic.

 

[fyrebug]

soccer moms on cellphones going even faster. sounds brilliant.

 

[Metastable]

People keep raising Montana without recognizing that Montana is a much different different place than Ontario from the standpoints of average travel distances, and both traffic and population densities.

Also, when you look at the actual numbers per KM travelled, Montana isn't all that safe a place to drive.

Turbo - you do realize those stats are from 2007 after a speed limit was reintroduced. So basically the deaths went down when there was NO LIMIT and back up when there was one. Plus you can't look at Montana and compare it to the rest of the US... it has some of the harshest weather conditions and difficult terrain.... as opposed to California where you have difficult terrain and the major highways are so congested (like Ontario) and are moving too slow for serious accidents.

 

[Metastable]

soccer moms on cellphones going even faster. sounds brilliant.

Of course it is the speed that is causing the lack of attention? Dude come on, when people are on the cell phone they tend to drive SLOWER because their brain can't do two things at once. So yes, people not paying attention will cause just as many accidents, but I doubt their speed will increase much.

Forum Sponsor