Railway Accidents and a Uniform Speed

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


At a late meeting of the National Association for Promoting Social Science, held in London, Lord Brougham read a lengthy paper on the prevention of railway accidents, in which he took the ground that the speed should be fixed by law, and should be moderate, not exceeding twenty or twenty-five miles per hour. He asserted that a very small number of travelers were willing to risk life and greater danger in order to save time by a high speed in traveling, while the great majority would prefer a moderate speed and greater safety. He alluded to the immunity from accidents on the railroads in continental Europe where the speed is regulated by law, and suggested the application of the same laws to British railroads. It is unquestionably true that there is greater safety in traveling at a low than a high speed on railroads; but safety does not altogether depend on the speed of the train, but a number of other equally important conditions, such as the solidity and construction of the road itself, also the engines and cars, and the skill and carefulness of the engineers and conductors. It is just as safe to run thirty miles per hour on our present railroads, with their heavy rails, as it was to run at the rate of fifteen miles per hour on the old flat strip rail tracks employed on our first railways.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 13 Issue 12This article was published with the title “Railway Accidents and a Uniform Speed” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 13 No. 12 (), p. 96
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican11281857-96a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe