UK Report Shows Only 2% of Accidents Caused by Speeding

[blueyes]

Wake up! Speeding isn't about the money. What did they net last year £48M? Pennies, as far as this goverment is concerned. It's all about control. A scamera here, another CCTV there, hold onto innocent peoples DNA.... the list is endless.

[vonhosen]

Peter Ward said:

delboy735 said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/st...


Take a look at this, and then tell me Scameras are not there for the revenue.

Its all boocks. The Government wants to spend more money on something worthwhile, like finding cures for Heart disease and cancer..................how many more lives would that save. Oh yes, it's got all to do with saving lives, its about raising revenue.

Sits back and awaits response from a "jobsworth".

Interesting tables on that site. Looking at the trend per country, UK has achieved a 20% improvement in deaths (92-01) while many other countries have achieved over 30%. Another country at the low end is Australia where there is also a focus on cameras as the hammer for the KSI nail.

It's also interesting to see Poland has a rate 2.5x worse than UK. Will we see the UK trend reverse as we get increasing numbers of Polish drivers here?

39% reduction of a very high number still leaves a very high number.
20% reduction of a much smaller number still leaves a much smaller number.
You don't honestly expect the country with one of the lowest long term number of deaths per head to also have the greatest reductions year on year do you ?
Far easier to make huge reductions from appalling initial figures. No surprise then that Portugal figures very poorly on initial figures, has the best percentage reduction, but still has a death rate that represents 2.64 times ours despite that great reduction.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 18th September 18:49

[delboy735]

vonhosen said:

delboy735 said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/st...


Take a look at this, and then tell me Scameras are not there for the revenue.

Its all boocks. The Government wants to spend more money on something worthwhile, like finding cures for Heart disease and cancer..................how many more lives would that save. Oh yes, it's got all to do with saving lives, its about raising revenue.

Sits back and awaits response from a "jobsworth".

Where would the money come from for medical cures ?
The pockets of non offenders ?
Where does the money for SCPs come from ?
The pockets of offenders ?

Didn't take long.

Why do I pay taxes? I would feel a little happier if jusy a small amount of my money was going to possibly find a cure.
Perhaps if some of these ridiculous reports, and surveys were binned they would several million pounds, get rid of penpushers from within the government, save several more million, and instead of sending troops abroad, just protect our own Island, save several more millions, cancel the space programmes, save several more millions, get rid of illegal immigrants, save several more millions.

Need I go on?

[Peter Ward]

vonhosen said:

Peter Ward said:

delboy735 said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/st...


Take a look at this, and then tell me Scameras are not there for the revenue.

Its all boocks. The Government wants to spend more money on something worthwhile, like finding cures for Heart disease and cancer..................how many more lives would that save. Oh yes, it's got all to do with saving lives, its about raising revenue.

Sits back and awaits response from a "jobsworth".

Interesting tables on that site. Looking at the trend per country, UK has achieved a 20% improvement in deaths (92-01) while many other countries have achieved over 30%. Another country at the low end is Australia where there is also a focus on cameras as the hammer for the KSI nail.

It's also interesting to see Poland has a rate 2.5x worse than UK. Will we see the UK trend reverse as we get increasing numbers of Polish drivers here?

39% reduction of a very high number still leaves a very high number.
20% reduction of a much smaller number still leaves a much smaller number.
You don't honestly expect the country with one of the lowest long term number of deaths per head to also have the greatest reductions year on year do you ?
Far easier to make huge reductions from appalling initial figures. No surprise then that Portugal figures very poorly on initial figures, has the best percentage reduction, but still has a death rate that represents 2.64 times ours despite that great reduction.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 18th September 18:49

The government promised a 50% reduction in KSIs over 10 years, and chose speed reduction as the main way to achieve it. I realise KSI isn't the same as K, but if it meant a disproportionate reduction in SI and zero reduction in K then it kept it very quiet. So it's not me that's naive by "expecting" a greater reduction than 20% over 10 years, it's our masters.

[esselte]

Peter Ward said:

vonhosen said:

Peter Ward said:

delboy735 said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/st...


Take a look at this, and then tell me Scameras are not there for the revenue.

Its all boocks. The Government wants to spend more money on something worthwhile, like finding cures for Heart disease and cancer..................how many more lives would that save. Oh yes, it's got all to do with saving lives, its about raising revenue.

Sits back and awaits response from a "jobsworth".

Interesting tables on that site. Looking at the trend per country, UK has achieved a 20% improvement in deaths (92-01) while many other countries have achieved over 30%. Another country at the low end is Australia where there is also a focus on cameras as the hammer for the KSI nail.

It's also interesting to see Poland has a rate 2.5x worse than UK. Will we see the UK trend reverse as we get increasing numbers of Polish drivers here?

39% reduction of a very high number still leaves a very high number.
20% reduction of a much smaller number still leaves a much smaller number.
You don't honestly expect the country with one of the lowest long term number of deaths per head to also have the greatest reductions year on year do you ?
Far easier to make huge reductions from appalling initial figures. No surprise then that Portugal figures very poorly on initial figures, has the best percentage reduction, but still has a death rate that represents 2.64 times ours despite that great reduction.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 18th September 18:49

The government promised a 50% reduction in KSIs over 10 years, and chose speed reduction as the main way to achieve it. I realise KSI isn't the same as K, but if it meant a disproportionate reduction in SI and zero reduction in K then it kept it very quiet. So it's not me that's naive by "expecting" a greater reduction than 20% over 10 years, it's our masters.

And how much of this reduction in K(SI) can be attributed to better vehicle design?Are there less accidents or just less injuries?

[safespeed]

vonhosen said:

39% reduction of a very high number still leaves a very high number.
20% reduction of a much smaller number still leaves a much smaller number.
You don't honestly expect the country with one of the lowest long term number of deaths per head to also have the greatest reductions year on year do you ?
Far easier to make huge reductions from appalling initial figures. No surprise then that Portugal figures very poorly on initial figures, has the best percentage reduction, but still has a death rate that represents 2.64 times ours despite that great reduction.

The ETSC report earlier this year showed very clearly that some of the safest countries were enjoying the biggest improvements. We were (from memory) 17th fastest improving, shamefully at the bottom of the league.

So you're wrong in spades about this.

[Bing o]

vonhosen said:

Lostusernamedamn said:

Shock horror what a surprise (not). Every now and then this is revealed, but the revenue camera spin meisters resume their bullsh1t propaganda in the hope the hope the public has a short memory.

Because it's not only about speed as a cause of collisions, it's the effect of speed as a contributory factor in incidence & severity as well. It's not going to go away.

So we concentrate on the 2% and not the 98%.

ExcrementExcellent.

[andmole]

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

39% reduction of a very high number still leaves a very high number.
20% reduction of a much smaller number still leaves a much smaller number.
You don't honestly expect the country with one of the lowest long term number of deaths per head to also have the greatest reductions year on year do you ?
Far easier to make huge reductions from appalling initial figures. No surprise then that Portugal figures very poorly on initial figures, has the best percentage reduction, but still has a death rate that represents 2.64 times ours despite that great reduction.

The ETSC report earlier this year showed very clearly that some of the safest countries were enjoying the biggest improvements. We were (from memory) 17th fastest improving, shamefully at the bottom of the league.

So you're wrong in spades about this.

It's so obvious that the original justification for the policy on speed cameras is thoroughly discredited, only a fool could argue.

Please note, I am not saying that all speed cameras are bad, just that most of them are, some, if correctly used, do have a place in an enlightened road safety policy. However certain people wouldn't recognise an enlightened road safety policy if it bit them on the ae.

[Lostusernamedamn]

andmole said:

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

39% reduction of a very high number still leaves a very high number.
20% reduction of a much smaller number still leaves a much smaller number.
You don't honestly expect the country with one of the lowest long term number of deaths per head to also have the greatest reductions year on year do you ?
Far easier to make huge reductions from appalling initial figures. No surprise then that Portugal figures very poorly on initial figures, has the best percentage reduction, but still has a death rate that represents 2.64 times ours despite that great reduction.

The ETSC report earlier this year showed very clearly that some of the safest countries were enjoying the biggest improvements. We were (from memory) 17th fastest improving, shamefully at the bottom of the league.

So you're wrong in spades about this.

It's so obvious that the original justification for the policy on speed cameras is thoroughly discredited, only a fool could argue.

Please note, I am not saying that all speed cameras are bad, just that most of them are, some, if correctly used, do have a place in an enlightened road safety policy. However certain people wouldn't recognise an enlightened road safety policy if it bit them on the ae.

Indeed. I've not seen one yet.

[Steven Toy]

So 2% of the total of just under 3500 road deaths a year. That's 70 people a year. No effort is spared in attempting to save 70 lives a year. Totalitarian speed limit enforcemnt whereby every single driver exceeding the posted limit by just one mph for one second would theoretically save only 70 lives per year.

I've heard the glib authoritarians who say that if it were only one life per year those 8,000 fixed and mobile cameras enforcing lowered limits would still be worth it.

However, driving tired causes some 17% and tiredness is exacerbated by lengthened journey times caused by speed limits being set too low as well as concentration loss through driving slowly. Moreover such enforcement would result in a perhaps irrational fear of being caught speeding and losing your licence so eyes, rightly or wrongly, would be glued to the speedo and not the road.

If anything deaths would rise, especially those of pedestrians.

[Steven Toy]

vonhosen said:

Peter Ward said:

delboy735 said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/st...


Take a look at this, and then tell me Scameras are not there for the revenue.

Its all boocks. The Government wants to spend more money on something worthwhile, like finding cures for Heart disease and cancer..................how many more lives would that save. Oh yes, it's got all to do with saving lives, its about raising revenue.

Sits back and awaits response from a "jobsworth".

Interesting tables on that site. Looking at the trend per country, UK has achieved a 20% improvement in deaths (92-01) while many other countries have achieved over 30%. Another country at the low end is Australia where there is also a focus on cameras as the hammer for the KSI nail.

It's also interesting to see Poland has a rate 2.5x worse than UK. Will we see the UK trend reverse as we get increasing numbers of Polish drivers here?

39% reduction of a very high number still leaves a very high number.
20% reduction of a much smaller number still leaves a much smaller number.
You don't honestly expect the country with one of the lowest long term number of deaths per head to also have the greatest reductions year on year do you ?
Far easier to make huge reductions from appalling initial figures. No surprise then that Portugal figures very poorly on initial figures, has the best percentage reduction, but still has a death rate that represents 2.64 times ours despite that great reduction.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 18th September 18:49

We achieved our excellent road safety record in the early nineties before speed cameras and local authorities were allowed to set limits.

[fluffnik]

Steven Toy said:

Even with no justification whatsoever this government has an overwhelming instinct of control. It really is as simple as that.

It's not just this government or even just the elected bits, the Civil Service[!] is rife with nasty little fascist twunts with empires to protect.

We need to elect people who will prune all the rot and canker from the state and its quasi autonomous tumours.

[fluffnik]

blueyes said:

Wake up! Speeding isn't about the money. What did they net last year £48M? Pennies, as far as this goverment is concerned. It's all about control. A scamera here, another CCTV there, hold onto innocent peoples DNA.... the list is endless.

Just part of the incipient fascist twuntery.

It all needs excised, like the cancer that it is.

[fluffnik]

vonhosen said:

It takes very few Police officers to prosecute a lot of speeders with modern technology.

Being easy does not make it even faintly just.

[safespeed]

fluffnik said:

vonhosen said:

It takes very few Police officers to prosecute a lot of speeders with modern technology.

Being easy does not make it even faintly just.

Nor does it make it even faintly useful.

[vonhosen]

Bing o said:

vonhosen said:

Lostusernamedamn said:

Shock horror what a surprise (not). Every now and then this is revealed, but the revenue camera spin meisters resume their bullsh1t propaganda in the hope the hope the public has a short memory.

Because it's not only about speed as a cause of collisions, it's the effect of speed as a contributory factor in incidence & severity as well. It's not going to go away.

So we concentrate on the 2% and not the 98%.

ExcrementExcellent.

No, because speed plays a part in looking but not seeing collisions (etc) as well. The less time everybody has to cover for those mistakes, the greater the chance of the collision & the more speed they carry into it the greater the chance of serious consequences.

[fluffnik]

Peter Ward said:

It's also interesting to see Poland has a rate 2.5x worse than UK. Will we see the UK trend reverse as we get increasing numbers of Polish drivers here?

Funny old place Poland.

On three occasions recently I have found myself facing a Polish registered car traveling on the wrong side of the road.

In Poland!

Fortunately it was at low speed in small villages in each case but it is a little discomfiting due to the fleeting feeling that it must be you, the furriner in the RHD car, who is on the wrong side of the road...

Each case was resolved by the Pole realising his error and passing with a sheepish grin and wave suggesting that the irony was not lost on them.

I guess they learned here or at least saved for their first car here.

There are lots of amusing truck bouncing out of rut signs in Poland, but the roads I traveled in the West were mostly not too dreadful - SC with wide shoulders used by slow traffic to aid passing mostly, not much dualled - and in general the signage while not up to German standards was far, far better than the Dutch.

There was less immediately noticeable deterioration in driving standards crossing from .de to .pl than .de to .nl but that could be down to much lower traffic densities...

The food is great and very, very cheap - pirogi

[vonhosen]

Steven Toy said:

So 2% of the total of just under 3500 road deaths a year. That's 70 people a year. No effort is spared in attempting to save 70 lives a year. Totalitarian speed limit enforcemnt whereby every single driver exceeding the posted limit by just one mph for one second would theoretically save only 70 lives per year.

I've heard the glib authoritarians who say that if it were only one life per year those 8,000 fixed and mobile cameras enforcing lowered limits would still be worth it.

However, driving tired causes some 17% and tiredness is exacerbated by lengthened journey times caused by speed limits being set too low as well as concentration loss through driving slowly. Moreover such enforcement would result in a perhaps irrational fear of being caught speeding and losing your licence so eyes, rightly or wrongly, would be glued to the speedo and not the road.

If anything deaths would rise, especially those of pedestrians.

It's not just 2%.
You don't look at speed as only a primary or sole cause.
You look at it as a contributory cause in aggravating other factors.

[EU_Foreigner]

anything that moves is at risk. The issue is wether by moving faster, that the risk is increased

[mr motor]

An even more efficient route to safer motoring would be to replace the dumb safety troll (or should that be government owned cash generating cow) stuck behind his little camera playing space invaders and bring back the good old-fashioned traffic copper and allowing him to use his own judgement as to whether to procecute the motorist based upon his own skill and judgement. Too many instances of stupid driving go unrecorded nowadays because there are no coppers watching out for dangerous drivers on our roads.

As to the London congestion charge, does anyone have access to the logs for the traffic light sequencing before the congestion charge came into place, because rumour has it that the headline reductions achieved in congestion in London straight after the charge was introduced, was achieved by reprogramming of the lights to something a little bit more efficient, rather than any changes in the behaviour of the average motorist! Though it has proved itself to be a wonderfully efficient tax generator for our friend Kenny R Livingstrom!!!