I'm typing this quickly from my iPod during my lecture so people can post questins and arguments that I can ask my lecturer about.

An increase in a given unit of speed equals an increase in likelihood of death in an accident. (lecturer didn't quote the source but said this has been statistically proven)

I brought up what that other person in the other thread mentioned about increasing speed limits in States leading to less accidents. Lecturer said this was found in only one questionable study. The majority of other studies have shown the opposite.

ABS breaks increase safety for pedestrians but not for those inside the car.

In hazard perception studies there is zero correlation between how good you think you are and how you actually perform.

More to come...

probably worth a note that my lecturer has a PhD is Cognitive Psych and is commisioned by transport departments both here and the UK to do this sort of research.

I frequent the ipswich motorway and cannot speed due to choked onramps which slow traffic down.

every K over is a killer, K?

i have heard of the mathematical formula every K over = killer.

edit: damn you strex

I'm sure too many units of speed would lead to an overdose, ask a trucker.

ABS breaks

BRAKES YOU JERK

Speeding is the least significant contributor to road fatalities.

evis - what?

Ask him whether speed was a factor in alot of those accidents, or if it was

A) Speed in a inapropriate situation (going to fast for a corner).
B) Completely unrelated to the accident, and the accident would have happened anyway, the difference just being the severity.

Billy - of all the main causes, DUI, inattention, disobeying road rules, fatigue and speeding.

Fatigue and speeding combined cause around 5% of total crashes.

cite references?

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb7618087645ef2/Pdf_2007_queensland_road_toll_in_review.pdf

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Safety/Road/Statistics/

They usually do at the end of the lecture.

Wouldn't speeding fall under "disobeying road rules" ?

From QLD Stats source:

Ninety five fatalities (or 26.5%) were as a result of
speeding drivers or riders and 65 fatalities (or 18.1%)
were involved in fatigue related crashes.

26.5 + 18.1 = 5% ?

last edited by Scooter at 11:22:26 12/May/08

ABS breaks increase safety for pedestrians but not for those inside the car.

i dont get it, you're either going fast enough to kill/die or you arent.



also f*** ABS I use raw talent to fight my way out of lockups

what about in stockholm, seperating off the pedos and raising the speedlimit - making roads safer allows for higher limits, or should we all push our cars to work?

or should we all push our cars to work?

We will be once the oil runs out!

giri - I haven't asked but I'm assuming it's only looking at cases of road fatalities where speed was known. It's not trying to imply more than it's saying. Either way it means going faster is generally worse.

from 2003 queensland report

Speed contributed in 16 per cent (n=45) and fatigue contributed in 13 per cent (n=37) of fatal crashes. Speed and fatigue each contributed in 5 per cent (n=1108 and n=1148 respectively) of all crashes.

We will be once the oil runs out!

Not me!

maxe - ABS comment was separate to speeding.

evis I dont get the point you are making. Are you not reporting other factors that are involved in fatal accidents with a higher percentage? Regardless, it doesn't stop the fact that an increase in speed increases likelihood of death. This point doesn't mean you have to be going over the speed limit.

Oil wont 'run' out. But it will be too expensive to use as transport fuel (actually it almost is now).

Hydrogen Fuel Cell EV's or Battery EV's will be the most common vehicles on the road in the next few decades.

These modern EV's has very good acceleration but cant really reach the uber high speed of Petrol Sportscars.

So my opinion is that you'll still be able to kill yourself by speeding in the future.

natslovr - roads like highways have less accidents. However accidents that do occur have worse consequences.

from 2003 queensland report

2003? Wow, Speeding must not hurt then... unless you look at the 2007 figures that you actually linked to.

Driving while talking on the phone quadruples your chance of an accident whether it's handsfree or not!

you should be citing this stuff as well billy I reckon

believing something just cos you say 'has a PhD is Cognitive Psych and is commisioned by transport departments both here and the UK to do this sort of research' is kind of blind

I am talking about inner city stockholm not highways. you can't walk across the road because it is fenced off. to get from one side of the road to the other you have to use a bridge or tunnel. they have increased the speedlimit in these areas (inner city, think brisbane cbd but bogan free) because they have fenced pedos off.

because they have fenced pedos off

i would lock em up personally.

OH YOU MEAN PEDESTRIANS

sorry

i just thought there was a high amount of pedofiles in stockholm

article today claims ay activity reduces your ability to drive. talking to passengers, singing to your radio, anything requiring less learning than driving impacts your ability to drive

http://science.org/view/generic/id/31426/title/Shifting_priorities_at_the_wheel

how do you weigh that against stimulus required to keep you awake (while pushing your car to work so as not to go too fast)?

I'll agree to that, riding a motorcycle keeps me fairly concentrated, being in a car with passengers can unsettle me.

Edit: also try this link http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/31426/title/Shifting_priorities_at_the_wheel

last edited by scuzzy at 12:09:16 12/May/08

jim - like I said I'm on my iPod and trying to be quick. I'm happy to update later with citations.

Natslovr - I dont see why the same wouldn't apply in your Helsinki example. You might see less pedo deaths and less crashes but crashes that happen might have worse consequences.

In terms of stimuli to keep you awake: if you're that tired behind the wheel that you need something to keep you awake then you should probably stop revive survive.

what if your car is powered by rice?

Then it clearly can't reach speeds required to hurt anyone, so don't worry pave.

pretty sure my neons would offend plenty of people

ok I'll let you off this time billy

Does using a hands free mobile kit in the car increase your chances of an accident like talking on your handheld mobile does? If so does talking to other people in car increase it?

speed limits are set for the lowest common denominator, ie an old granny in a s***box.

the system definitely needs to be more strict in the issuing of licenses, defensive driving courses should be compulsory- teaching everyone how to react when their car does not have complete traction !

understanding the physics of driving has saved me countless times!

i find it really annoying when passangers put the radio up really loud while im driving so i can't even hear them if they talk to me

I've always gone with the rule "don't mess with other people's car radios". Passangers that dick around with my radio changing stations/cds without asking when I'm driving my car can get out and walk instead.

As for speeds kills? Sure it does, even with the best brakes in the world you still have to factor in reaction time and stopping distance. Found this on a quick google.

http://www.officeofroadsafety.wa.gov.au/documents/Speed_DL_000.pdf

speed limits are set for the lowest common denominator, ie an old granny in a s***box.

- if you are male and between the ages of 25 and 65, add 20km to this speed limit;
- if you are male and under 25 subtract 10km from this speed limit;
- if you are female, have children and drive a 4wd to transport those children to school - subtract 10km from this speed limit;
- if you are asian, subtract 15km from this speed limit;
- if you are a taxi driver, add 10km to this speed limit;
- if you are a taxi driver and arrived in Australia off a boat within the last 4 weeks, deduct 10km from this speed limit.

y'know infi, that'd be a great idea. except then in a 60 zone you'd be stuck behind an asian doing 45.

So basically all your professor has told you is that the faster you go, then come to an immediate stop, the more chances of you being seriously hurt are.

I'm glad he got a PHD for that.

How do i get on his contracts? i'll do it for half price.

As evis pointed out speed doesn't contribute to a Majority of accidents that are reported. It may contribute (whether it is above or at the speedlimit) to the fatalities, but thats no genious statement.

less chance of them running into a pole though.

y'know infi, that'd be a great idea. except then in a 60 zone you'd be stuck behind an asian doing 45.

So there'd be no difference?

how distracting is it to be constantly taking your eyes off the road to look down at your speedo to make sure you arent speeding by 2kph?

just set a limiter for the good old speed limit + 10% = BECAUSE ALL SPEED CAMERAS HAVE 10% TOLERANCE AMIRITE?

So there'd be no difference?

ahaha

also
agreed scooby.

how distracting is it to be constantly taking your eyes off the road to look down at your speedo to make sure you arent speeding by 2kph?

HUD ftw!

http://jason.qgl.org/images/Image005.JPG

Does using a hands free mobile kit in the car increase your chances of an accident like talking on your handheld mobile does? If so does talking to other people in car increase it?

Been a while since I did the course that covered this (Out of interest Billy, you mean Mark Horswill right?)... Basically, yes it does increase it, though afaik not significantly until other factors were introduced. I think it was suggested that there was something in how we communicate to another person over the phone that requires more concentration (visualising person, conveying meaning without using nonverbal gestures as opposed to limited nonverbals while driving etc)

But I can't recall too well

An increase in a given unit of speed equals an increase in likelihood of death in an accident. (lecturer didn't quote the source but said this has been statistically proven)

Statistics never prove anything, you interpret them draw a conclusion then prove that using other means. And they can be interpreted to mean anything. There are 3 types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

But beyond that if you have an accident at speeds above 60km/h you are more likely to become a fatality, The higher the speed the more chance. Not because the speed is causing the accident, but because there more energy involved in the accident (conservation of energy and all that). Its physics, not statistics.

But if he is then trying to say reducing speed limits reduces accidents, I'd question that. Speed limits are an artificial number that is there to act as a guide and allow government to raise revenue.
eg. The road up to Falls creek is 60km/h, after a big snow fall and a layer of ice, I tripple dare (physical challenge) any Brisbane driver to make it up there without dropping below 60km/h (particularly a loon bag with slicks and a turbo). You drive to conditions and your ability, not to a sign. Over estimating the ability of yourself and your car are the cause not the speed.

Any and all statistical data with cars, speeding and fatalities is instantly dubious. Why ?
Independent rear suspension ? seat belts ? air bags ? crumple zones ? side impact ? disc brakes ? child restraints ? road construction methods.... in other words too many variables and some variables that never existed in parts of your data sample.

In fact using http://www.atsb.gov.au/includes/apps/fatal_crash/fatalCrash.aspx
You can generate your own stats.
See if you can get a hold of a 94 Qld Government TravelSafe report that said that travelling over the speed limit was a factor in some single digit percentage of fatalities.

See you could equally argue that probability of having an accident is a function of time spent on the road. Both in the long term (random event) or short term (fatigue). The more time spent on the road the greater the chance you will be involved. There for by travelling slower you actually increase your time spent on the road and there for the chance you will be in an accident. (Good luck finding data set).

what i don't get about c***s who cry about speed cameras, etc is this.

"by having to constantly monitor my speed by watching the speedo i'm less aware of the road, whinge, whinge etc"

usually the same chumps who think they are top of the food chain on the road anyway, yet for some reason they can't judge the speed of their pride and joy without constantly watching a dial. if you can maintain 60+/-5km/h then you are a s*** driver. its even easier at 100km/h because engine noise and road noise are louder, you've also got vibrations from engines and the stimuli of objects moving towards you.

Does using a hands free mobile kit in the car increase your chances of an accident like talking on your handheld mobile does? If so does talking to other people in car increase it?

Also a person in a car has context to what is going on in the situation. You can see by someones expression or body language if someone is concentrating on something and stop speaking to them. Or you might see potential situations for the person to need to concentrate. On the phone you have none of these cues. Hands free really isn't that much safer, there is quite a lot of supporting evidence of this.

talking to people in cars is just as bad as talking on a phone imo (at the very least its ballpark), its just that theres no way to ban it.

if you can maintain 60+/-5km/h then you are a s*** driver

I assume that should be "can't"?

yea nf, talking lowest common denominator drivers who naturally arent aware of their situation and speed.
where monitoring speed becomes more of a priority than watching the roaddddd

last edited by scooby at 19:14:43 12/May/08

the system definitely needs to be more strict in the issuing of licenses, defensive driving courses should be compulsory- teaching everyone how to react when their car does not have complete traction !

understanding the physics of driving has saved me countless times!

Skid control training actually makes the chance of being involved in an accident more likely (see edit). Defensive driving as it is in Australia seems to make people more aware of hazards and is an exception to the "increase driver skill increase chance of an accident" rule. Edit: Sorry - I got this a little confused: Williams & O’Neill (1974) discovered highly skilled drivers (licenced race rivers) had more accidents on public roads than a control group. Compulsory skid training had no overall effect on accidents despite a huge sample (n = 30,616; Katila et al., 1996). Obes, note the massive sample size - this hugely reduces that error I was talking about;)

As for stricter lisencing procedures: My lecturer (and yes it's Horswill for whoever asked) has been involved with developing a new test for drivers that people sitting their tests from July will have to do. It involves hazard perception, and it's the only sort of test that has been statistically shown to have any predictive ability of car crashes. Edit: I should clarify that: according to literature, the only component of driving skill to be correlated with accident involvement is hazard perception. Arguing FOR Obes, it's probably the only one because of all the error in other measures.

Statistics never prove anything, you interpret them draw a conclusion then prove that using other means. And they can be interpreted to mean anything. There are 3 types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

You're right in that stats can be interpreted any way which is why it's important to only look at stuff in peer reviewed journals and have a critical eye when reading things. However, stats doesn't "prove" anything, nor does it pretend to. It simply shows you the probabilities of something occurring due to chance versus to an actual effect of something happening.

But if he is then trying to say reducing speed limits reduces accidents, I'd question that. Speed limits are an artificial number that is there to act as a guide and allow government to raise revenue.
eg. The road up to Falls creek is 60km/h, after a big snow fall and a layer of ice, I tripple dare (physical challenge) any Brisbane driver to make it up there without dropping below 60km/h (particularly a loon bag with slicks and a turbo). You drive to conditions and your ability, not to a sign. Over estimating the ability of yourself and your car are the cause not the speed.

He wasn't saying that. He did say (which I didn't write) that the best way to decrease accidents is a combination of factors, like better driver training, better cars, better roads, better safety precautions etc.

Any and all statistical data with cars, speeding and fatalities is instantly dubious. Why ?
Independent rear suspension ? seat belts ? air bags ? crumple zones ? side impact ? disc brakes ? child restraints ? road construction methods.... in other words too many variables and some variables that never existed in parts of your data sample.

Like I said, it's good to look at results with a critical eye, but I wouldn't necessarily call studies like this "dubious". The factors you refer are considered inerror.

See you could equally argue that probability of having an accident is a function of time spent on the road. Both in the long term (random event) or short term (fatigue). The more time spent on the road the greater the chance you will be involved. There for by traveling slower you actually increase your time spent on the road and there for the chance you will be in an accident. (Good luck finding data set).

You could argue that, and it wouldn't be overly difficult to "find the data set" if you knew what sort of statistics to run: a heirarchical regression would control for km's driven, or years behind the wheel etc. For example, studies have shown there is a correlation between hazard perception and accident involvement controlling for age and mileage (we've been given 3 references for that: TRRL, 1979; Quimby et al., 1986; McKenna & Horswill, 1999. I can provide full references if requested.)

So there you go Obes - stats ain't as bad as you make out:p Remember, these are the same sorts of statistics that are used to see if drugs like Aspirin do anything to you. Again, your point about viewing results with caution is still a good one.

So basically all your professor has told you is that the faster you go, then come to an immediate stop, the more chances of you being seriously hurt are.

I'm glad he got a PHD for that.

Yet still people argue that they should be allowed to speed. Yet still people speed. Yet still people die as a results of speeding. And he didn't get a PhD for that.

How do i get on his contracts? i'll do it for half price.

You have to have a clue about the proper use of statistics.

As evis pointed out speed doesn't contribute to a Majority of accidents that are reported. It may contribute (whether it is above or at the speedlimit) to the fatalities, but thats no genious statement.

What point are you arguing here? You agree that speeding is involved in accidents? Are you suggesting that we only target the factors that cause the most amount of deaths? As far as I can see, the only thing with higher involvement in fatalities than speeding is drug/alcohol use. In one link evis supplied speeding is involved in 25% of road fatalities (from 2007).

last edited by B.Hardball at 21:45:36 12/May/08

last edited by B.Hardball at 21:49:21 12/May/08

however, stats doesn't "prove" anything, nor does it pretend to.

Yet you yourself used the phrase "statistically proven" when quoting your professor and I am aware that to you aren't using to mean that it proves it, I am saying the language implies its right because the stats prove it (literally it means proven by statistics).

Stats are not bad, my bro-in law works for ABS. But they are tool of mass deception as well as learning. People falsely link probability and stats all too readily. And stats are only as good as the data in. I can't imagine a full investigation happens for every accident in the state (eg. the single car accident out beyond the black stump).

In my experience some academics treat them like some form of higher truth and use them as a proof, despite other people seeing a different thing in the same data.

In my one of my AI (machine learning actually) subjects doing IT at uni we used a lot of data sets. One of the more interesting things I took out of it they showed how wonky data can be, resulting in expert systems that would draw conclusions between unrelated pieces of data.

commisioned by transport departments both here and the UK to do this sort of research

The departments are in part funded by fines for speed cameras, and to justify speed cameras they need research that proves speeding is dangerous. And his research is funded by these people ? So by ensuring fines are continuing to be issued (because speeding is bad) he ensures his continued research grants? I am far too cynical. Lets graph fines revenue vs. reduction in fatal accidents ...

When I look at the pure stats on that government web page I linked earlier.
The number of fatal accidents reduced fairly constantly from 89 to about 97, then it slowwed down but kept reducing to about 03/04. But the number of fatal accidents since 2004 has been higher then both 03 and 04... interestingly wouldn't that be about the time they introduced the 50k speed limits in built up areas ? probably other factors but still

Oh god.

For the second time in a week, I find myself both posting _and_ agreeing with Obes. I feel violated, kind of like Mariah Carey claims she'd feel if she were up the duff.

I want to talk about statistics, as they add about as much value to a discussion around saving lives as a catholic priest could add to a discussion about sex. With a woman.

Statistics are perverse. Even those in "peer reviewed journals". "Peer reviewed journals" are at some point published, and often taken as fact without much thought of what the "peer reviews" actually said. Particularly so those presented in a tertiary environment by a lecturer who is pushing his or her own agenda (ie book sales or new, wonderful test techniques).

It's abit like that futurama episode where Bender gets on all my circuits, by hooting and hollering about how good he was outside the audition room; only in this case the lecturers (or the "road safety/awareness/whatever" company that charges big $$ to company ABC to educate staff, or whomever else, for that matter) are the ones who are off spouting their theories to others so that they can generate the noise for them, thereby influencing the decision makers and keeping the $$ coming in (from the commissioning of more studies, the pickup of more courses, the publishing of more books).

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. Looking at the dates of the publications you've quoted, the most recent is 1999 (and its co-written by your professor) - lets consider that there is some writing time/publishing lag, and of course some time to "interpret" the data - meaning that the study those statistics are based on are at least 10 years old.

At best, those statistics can tell us what factors were likely contributors to an accident in 1998. So, considering this, I don't understand at all how Obes' point around equipment and road improvements can be simply brushed away by saying "oh, thats just standard error". It's abit like continuing to claim that the Reds have the edge over the Tah's, using old statistics to back it up and explaining away any factors that are inconvenient as being "standard error". (And no, Ara, this is in no way a concession that the Tah's are better than the Reds. They remain bottom feeding swine.)

So, firstly, the statistics you're quoting are hardly what I would call objective. Secondly, they're old. Thirdly, statistics cause chafing.

Yet still people argue that they should be allowed to speed. Yet still people speed. Yet still people die as a results of speeding. And he didn't get a PhD for that.

You have to have a clue about the proper use of statistics.

What point are you arguing here? You agree that speeding is involved in accidents? Are you suggesting that we only target the factors that cause the most amount of deaths? As far as I can see, the only thing with higher involvement in fatalities than speeding is drug/alcohol use. In one link evis supplied speeding is involved in 25% of road fatalities (from 2007).

I'm agreeing that, speed increases the likely hood of being hurt more, thats a no brainer that everyone agrees on. I'm saying (and at no point has anyone been able to produce stats to the contrary) that speed isn't the main cause of a majority of accidents.

And yet the message that keeps being promoted is that if you go above the speed limit you are going to have an accident and kill you, and at least 10 people you care about. Where there are no stats to even start along this conclusion.

Those are 2 very different points, and yet, the majority of of road safety initiatives in australia aren't about producing better drivers, better roads, or outlawing out of date cars with subpar safety standards by todays standards. It's all focused on the one thing that the government can penalise you on the easiest and return review off of.

Don't use statistics then, use common sense.

I was still confused why you were arguing giri then i realised it might have been how I worded "An increase in a given unit of speed equals an increase in likelihood of death in an accident." What that should read is "If an accident were to occur, an increase in speed equals an increase in likelihood of death." At no point was I trying to say that we learned increasing speed increases chance of an accident, although I would bet my left arm it does.

So far in this thread from links posted it has been suggested that the three main causes of fatal crashes are inattention of the driver, drugs and alcohol and speeding. Police DONT just target one or the other, they try to target all. They have banned the use of phones while driving, they have more and more RBTs and more speed cameras. Arguing about what "statistics" say is one thing, using common sense is another.

Argh! Anyways, moral of the story is, if you want to increase your chances of NOT crashing and NOT dying in a car, dont talk on your phone, dont do drugs and drive, dont speed, be aware of your surrounds

It makes sense that speeding has an influence on crashing. Without statistics you can still easily understand that the faster you are going the less time you have to react to a threat.

Society has to come to balance between adequate time of travel and safety. That is where the statistics come in to play. What is the optimal speed to reduce both fatal and non-fatal accidents while keeping acceptable travel time.

Yes billy, but alot of those fatal accidents aren't even necessarily going above the speed limit. Alot of them happen on freeways and motor ways, where you just happen to be travelling fastER.


That's a subtlety thats being skipped over alot too.

But that's just me being argumentative.

"If an accident were to occur, an increase in speed equals an increase in likelihood of death."

That's physics not stats. Conservation of energy etc etc and a bunch of swedish test dummies and people in lab coats.

Thats said its fairly minor. ie. When they reduced the speed limit from 60 to 50. The number of fatal accidents seemingly increased. But maybe so did the number of accidents, and the percentage of fatal ones reduced ? Maybe its because its only true for accidents above a certain speed.

I would have thought fatigue and speeding would have been major contributors to road FATALITIES given all of the money put into advertising the risks involved?

Perhaps it's because of the IMPACT of fatigue and speeding on accidents though? As in you have accidents as well as fatalities.

I guess you have to ask yourself what costs more to the taxpayer/government - cleaning up a road accident after a death or paying for a carer's allowance after someone has become a paraplegic..

I think speeding and fatigue (although not AS implicated in FATALITIES) are significantly more implicated in accidents (and associated costs stemming from these accidents).

last edited by Agent 99 at 10:21:12 13/May/08

Would it not make sense that they are lower because of all the money put into its prevention? A road fatality costs around 2 million not including medical bills. p.s. do ur assignment!

^ No, not necessarily. Just because you TELL ppl something is bad for them (ie speeding, driving tired) DOESN'T mean that a SIGNIFICANT portion will stop doing these things.

My point was moreso that speeding and fatigue are prolly MORE important contributors of road crashes than for example, DUI, taking drugs, because they result in more accidents (c.f. fatalities) and therefore have a more significant impact on the individual in the accident (they may become paraplegic), the people around them (family and friends and those that become implicated in the accident) and the cost to society.

Accidents have a greater impact overall c.f. fatigue.

Therefore, speeding and fatigue are MORE IMPORTANT considerations in my opinion and are what people need to try and avoid.

last edited by Agent 99 at 10:35:06 13/May/08

But statistically they aren't :P

I would like to see these statistics and how they have been intepreted.

Read the thread noob

I have browsed the thread (not the stats).

My posts are JUST ideas based on what I have read.

In my OPINION, accidents have greater immplications overall (for individuals and society). I would be interested to know the major causes of accidents (not combined with fatalities) resulting from car crashes.

From my point of view, it would be the causes of accidents that need to be given the most attention.

The end ~~ :)

You're lucky I like you.

(n = 30,616; Katila et al., 1996). Obes, note the massive sample size - this hugely reduces that error I was talking about;)

Only if you had a truely random sample to start with.

If a person has a BAC of 0.06, the road is wet, and has pot holes, and is doing 10km over the speed limit, with bald tyres, when driving into an oncoming truck.

What are we going to pick as the cause ? which are factors and which aren't ?

The stats are against your statement Agent 99. As are most other arguments in here :P

Oh and the cost of clean up is rarely born by the goverment, some insurance company is picking up the bill most of the time.

Fair point Giri, i can accept if i am wrong.

Just thoughts - would be interesting to analyse the stats data (if I had the time I guess ^^).

Oh and the cost of clean up is rarely born by the goverment, some insurance company is picking up the bill most of the time.

With regards to this statement tho (just to clarify) I was looking at costs associated with car ACCIDENTS - disability claims by those in accidents, carer claims, affects on the healthcare system looking after those in accidents, etc.

Costs associated with car accidents beyond the accident itself (costs beyond those covered by individuals and insurance companies).

Was just suggeting that accidents have greater implications for individuals and societies and therefore should be the target of prevention campaigns. IF speeding and fatigue are significantly impilcated in accidents, THEN these are important.



Separate to this, I just felt that speeding was being belittled as an important cause in road accidents and fatalities (as I'm sure preventing speeding has prevented many accidents and deaths) and that certain ppl were therefore justifying speeding as "not so bad" (because of the decrease of deaths related to this). I think it needs to be considered how many lives not speeding is likely to have saved. This could be looked at by looking at deaths from speeding over time periods through the introduction of interventions.

Anyways ~


last edited by Agent 99 at 13:11:08 13/May/08

Or you might see potential situations for the person to need to concentrate. On the phone you have none of these cues. Hands free really isn't that much safer, there is quite a lot of supporting evidence of this.

Never driven with a woman in the car have you? or more than 1 person?

holding a phone to your ear while driving is stupid because it gives you less control over the vehcial (only driving with one hand/ kinked sholder).

however hands free i think should be no different to talking to people in the car. (if not better, as your not looking over to talk to them).

Any distraction will increase likelyhood of an accident. The point I am making is that talking on a hands free is not a safe solution, it is a safer solution.

^well, according to the research, no it's not ^
(Redelmeier & Tibishirani, 1997, full reference available if you want to read it)

Only if you had a truely random sample to start with.

It'd be difficult to get a sample of THAT many people and not be a good estimate of a given population. Try finding a sample of 30 000 people that have so much in common that confound driving tests. I guess you could get a sample of 12 year olds, or 80 year olds, or people who are blind, or people with only one arm...

I'm really sick of arguing about this stuff:p

Thats the thing with research. You can find a paper that will back up any arguement. If I had the time, the way this would play out is I would find a contradiciting research paper then we would argue about which sourced data from the more reputable publications.

Thats the thing with research. You can find a paper that will back up any arguement. If I had the time, the way this would play out is I would find a contradiciting research paper then we would argue about which sourced data from the more reputable publications.

*sigh* I guess there's no point in doing research then. Let's just all use personal experience to argue about everything.

Thats the thing with research. You can find a paper that will back up any arguement. If I had the time, the way this would play out is I would find a contradiciting research paper then we would argue about which sourced data from the more reputable publications.

If you are wrong, no amount of research will prove you right.

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/5000/500/5652/5652.strip.print.gif

It'd be difficult to get a sample of THAT many people and not be a good estimate of a given population.

Grab 30,000 people that live in the Melbourne CBD ... they drive like lunatics lane splitting passing on the left, cutting people off, parking in the middle of the road with the engine running.

*sigh* I guess there's no point in doing research then.

Perhaps there needs to be research into the usefulness of research.

Let's just all use personal experience to argue about everything.

Any day of the week I will go on my personal gut feeling based of the experiences in my life over some paper some egg head who probably doesn't even know how much a litre of milk costs (or the procedures in buying it) published.

Of course there are exceptions to this.

Any day of the week I will go on my personal gut feeling based of the experiences in my life over some paper some egg head who probably doesn't even know how much a litre of milk costs (or the procedures in buying it) published.

Of course there are exceptions to this.

So you go with your gut except when you don't, oh ok.

I go with my gut feeling when someone says studies prove "that hands free is as dangerous as holding a mobile" and "defensive driver courses make people more susceptable to accidents".

For things that I cannot detect myself from doing and seeing stuff I pay a little creedence to studies and what-not.

You really are one of those people that I have to carefully explain things to aren't ya?

I love special people like fpot who are superior to the average person....even if there is in-desputable proof that talking on a hands-free increases chances of an accident, this doesn't apply to you because you're probably better at multi-tasking than everyone else.

Speed limits shouldn't apply to f***wits in rice burners because the fact that they get boners over going fast means they're at least 10-20 times better drivers than the average person. And driving slow makes you crash and increases you're chance of dying, painfully.

but i am burning rice and not fossil fuels, so my carbon foot print will be smaller than yours come the end of the world by global warming hence me > you

pity rice paddies are a massive source of greenhouse gases though

as big as all the cars burning petrol?

paves r32 is so high his engine heats up the atmosphere

yeah LOL

as if you are burning any petrol pave, only diesel and whatever natural gas those buses run on.

i tend to steer clear of those gas powered buses, they could explode

lol wat

perfect

that was pave's attempt to burn, as you can see pave burns about as well as LPG does on a cold winter's morning.

did you miss that bit of news mr hardware

that s*** explodes

for reals

pave, its "asplodes"

I love special people like fpot who are superior to the average person....even if there is in-desputable proof that talking on a hands-free increases chances of an accident, this doesn't apply to you because you're probably better at multi-tasking than everyone else.

Wow another moron. Read what I said, d*******.

Even if there was indisputable proof that reading increased the chances of comprehension, it doesn't apply to him and he'll post anyway.

I hear nF decreases his chances of being in a major accident by driving exclusively on the footpath

fpot: maybe you weren't the perfect example of what I was trying to illustrate. Although you probably are one of those people who thinks they're 20% better than everyone else. But that's just my gut-feeling. I have no evidence to prove it...so it must be right.

My next point: I hate ballsacks like fpot who are stupid enough to think their gut-feeling is every day of the week correct even if people/teams have done months/years of research to prove otherwise.

If I still was too stupid to interpret your high level dialogue then hows this:
I hate ballsacks like fpot.

So you think that a hands free mobile kit is just as dangerous as a handheld mobile and that defensive driver courses actually increase the chances of you having an accident?

and that defensive driver courses actually increase the chances of you having an accident?

I qualified the comment about defensive driving: some defensive driving courses you can do in Brisbane seem to train you in hazard perception which can decrease your likelihood of a crash. Training like "vehicle control training" and "skid training" DO NOT decrease your chance of having an accident. Pretty sure in the lecture he also pointed out a study that vehicle control training led to an INCREASE in crashes, and it was thought this was due to an increase in confidence in driving ability, which led to an increase in risk taking behaviour.

So you think that a hands free mobile kit is just as dangerous as a handheld mobile

Intuitively this doesn't feel right... but I'd still be more inclined to trust research more than based on your experiences.

So you think that a hands free mobile kit is just as dangerous as a handheld mobile and that defensive driver courses actually increase the chances of you having an accident?

Wow another moron. Read what I said, d*******.

I have no idea - I try not to make claims about things I have no idea about. If I was to look at the various studies on the topics and learn more about them in general then I could make an informed decision. Like you, my gut-feeling is that talking on a hands free mobile would be less dangerous. But if I was to look into the research, and it showed that it was as dangerous, then I think I would be an idiot to assume my gut-feeling is correct and all the research is wrong.

When talking on a mobile or hands-free kit, the person your talking to is not in the situation you are in. Perhaps this causes a small portion your minds processing power to 'imagine' the other person, possibly taking away slightly from hazard perception in your current environment? Something along those lines would be my guess as to why talking on a hands free kit is just as dangerous as a mobile.

Besides, I can feel a slight difference in my perception of my immediate surroundings when talking handsfree/on a mobile compared to talking to a person directly. Since I feel it, it must be right, right?

Well, studies have shown that you have slower reaction times to responding to someone even when you're doing something as simple as walking (Lajoie et al., 1993). This is possibly due to having to share cognitive load between tasks. Therefore, talking on a mobile with handsfree or not could increase your chances of accidents simply because you're diverting your cognitive load.

But Billy, you ask, why would it be different for having someone sitting next to you?

Firstly, maybe it's not different and the research just hasn't been conducted (or shoved under my nose).

Secondly, research has shown that reaction times to changing gears when cued with a certain stimulus is greater when you are listening to headphones compared to just sound from the car speakers (Nelson and Nilsson, 1990). This is possibly because having audio go directly into your ear captures your auditory attention more (but not visual attention) and takes your focus off external events.

Most likely, it is a combination of these factors, as well as some others that are yet to be uncovered.

last edited by B.Hardball at 15:01:20 16/May/08

That's something else extremely gay, morons in their cars with f***ing earphones in BOTH ears. That just stops you from hearing a plethora of important things on the road it boggles my mind.

That's something else extremely gay, morons in their cars with f***ing earphones in BOTH ears. That just stops you from hearing a plethora of important things on the road it boggles my mind

must agree

it's pretty f***ing retared, even loud as f*** stereo is better than noise blocking ear bud headphones

some people just have a death wish. i would let natural selection sort them out if not for the innocents they endanger.

so instead, TAZER THE f*** OUT OF THEM.

so instead, TAZER THE f*** OUT OF THEM.

Agreed. I think police should have quotas. They should have to tazer every person at least once per year. It would make walking down the street so much more entertaining than it currently is (not hard).

That's something else extremely gay, morons in their cars with f***ing earphones in BOTH ears. That just stops you from hearing a plethora of important things on the road it boggles my mind

I came to the conclusion that these people must be using the earphones as a hands free (you always get those crappy things when you buy phones). I made this assumption when I saw two people in late model cars in the same day with them in....I figured they couldn't both have broken radios. But then it is more common to see people in s***boxes wearing them. But that could be because poor people can't afford Bluetooth.

I tried driving with headphones once... f*** me how can people do it? I instantly felt unsafe.

I realise it may be handsfree, hell my handfree kit is two earphones coz I have a walkman phone but I only need 1 earbud in if I'm using it (rarely)

I tried driving with headphones once... f*** me how can people do it? I instantly felt unsafe.

Heh I did the same thing, felt like like I was going to die the whole time they were in - took 'em out and haven't done it since.

you harrisons are driving nubs - accept this ridicule, and may it make you cry yourself to sleep

So when the radio is turned up pretty loud and all the windows are wound up you guys can hear things outside the vehicle?

I tried driving with headphones once... f*** me how can people do it? I instantly felt unsafe.

Deaf people do it all the time

Heh I did the same thing, felt like like I was going to die the whole time they were in - took 'em out and haven't done it since.

Yeah but anytime some sort of sickness sweeps the country (read kill a few people and gets in the paper)you think you are going to die, its not surprising 2 earphones, small fluffy bunnies and unwashed head hankies have that same effect on you.


Statistical Fact :
The more people a community has the more churches it has
Statistical Fact :
The more people a community has the more murders it has
Therefore you can only assume that churches are the cause of murder

And anyone who ate bread between the years 1800 and 1850 died.

What's your point?

PS

Therefore you can only assume that churches are the cause of murder

you're retarded:p

last edited by B.Hardball at 09:26:11 17/May/08

There are certain people I refuse to be a passenger in a car with these days... they spend so much time talking to the person next to them and so little time watching for traffic and pedestrians, its scary being in the car with them.