BBC: Doubt cast on road safety claims
Discussion
Doubt cast on road safety claims
The government is aiming to reduce road crash death and injuries
Research has cast doubt on government claims roads are getting safer.
A study by Oxford University and a regional public health group found serious injuries caused by road crashes had not changed since the mid 1990s.
Latest figures show the government is on target to reduce road deaths and serious injuries by 40% by 2010 when compared to the mid 1990s.
But the Department for Transport said the British Medical Journal report was misleading.
The government is on track to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured by 40% and children by 50%
Stephen Ladyman, of the Department for Transport
Police figures, used by the government, show the numbers killed or seriously injured on England's roads has fallen by nearly a third from 86 per 100,000 to 59 per 100,000 from 1996 to 2004.
The majority of this fall has been driven by a 32% drop in injuries, the figures show.
But if hospital admissions are used, the number of serious injuries has remained largely stable. It was 90 per 100,000 in 1996 and 91 eight years later, the team from Oxford University and the South East Regional Public Health Group in Guildford said.
Lead researcher Dr Mike Gill said: "The discrepancies are likely to be down to under-reporting of accidents to police.
"But it raises questions about the police figures and I think it is important the government looks at the hospital figures."
Road Safety Minister Stephen Ladyman said the study was misleading as police figures were more accurate than hospital data.
"The government is on track to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured by 40% and children by 50%.
"This paper provides no evidence to believe otherwise."
Sleepy
Another report in the BMJ also strengthened the link between the risk of driving while feeling sleepy.
In a survey of 13,299 middle-aged drivers, researchers found people who drover while sleepy a few times year were 1.5 times more likely to be involved in a serious crash than those who did not drive while sleepy.
Those who said they drove while sleepy each month were nearly three times more likely to have an accident, the team from the Victor Segalen University in France said.
And a third BMJ report by Imperial College in London also said 4x4 drivers were more likely to flout mobile phone and seat belt laws.
They said 4x4 drivers probably took more risks because they feel safer in their vehicles than other motorists.
In total, the study of over 40,000 drivers found one in six did not where seatbelts.
Roger Vincent, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: "While standards of driving are better in the UK than many countries, there are still too many people taking unnecessary risks on the roads. We must get better."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/510
The government is aiming to reduce road crash death and injuries
Research has cast doubt on government claims roads are getting safer.
A study by Oxford University and a regional public health group found serious injuries caused by road crashes had not changed since the mid 1990s.
Latest figures show the government is on target to reduce road deaths and serious injuries by 40% by 2010 when compared to the mid 1990s.
But the Department for Transport said the British Medical Journal report was misleading.
The government is on track to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured by 40% and children by 50%
Stephen Ladyman, of the Department for Transport
Police figures, used by the government, show the numbers killed or seriously injured on England's roads has fallen by nearly a third from 86 per 100,000 to 59 per 100,000 from 1996 to 2004.
The majority of this fall has been driven by a 32% drop in injuries, the figures show.
But if hospital admissions are used, the number of serious injuries has remained largely stable. It was 90 per 100,000 in 1996 and 91 eight years later, the team from Oxford University and the South East Regional Public Health Group in Guildford said.
Lead researcher Dr Mike Gill said: "The discrepancies are likely to be down to under-reporting of accidents to police.
"But it raises questions about the police figures and I think it is important the government looks at the hospital figures."
Road Safety Minister Stephen Ladyman said the study was misleading as police figures were more accurate than hospital data.
"The government is on track to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured by 40% and children by 50%.
"This paper provides no evidence to believe otherwise."
Sleepy
Another report in the BMJ also strengthened the link between the risk of driving while feeling sleepy.
In a survey of 13,299 middle-aged drivers, researchers found people who drover while sleepy a few times year were 1.5 times more likely to be involved in a serious crash than those who did not drive while sleepy.
Those who said they drove while sleepy each month were nearly three times more likely to have an accident, the team from the Victor Segalen University in France said.
And a third BMJ report by Imperial College in London also said 4x4 drivers were more likely to flout mobile phone and seat belt laws.
They said 4x4 drivers probably took more risks because they feel safer in their vehicles than other motorists.
In total, the study of over 40,000 drivers found one in six did not where seatbelts.
Roger Vincent, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: "While standards of driving are better in the UK than many countries, there are still too many people taking unnecessary risks on the roads. We must get better."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/510
How can Police figures be more reliable than the Hospital data? The Hospitals treat the injured from the accidents and that's what they're measuring - the injured.
Do they not think that some people attend a Hospital the morning after an accident when the Police are no longer involved?
Do they not think that some people attend a Hospital the morning after an accident when the Police are no longer involved?
Ladyboy basically said:
The figures from the Hospital admissions make our figures look bad, therefore they are unreliable and the figures we have already are the best. Please swallow some more of our bulls
t
tThis report highlights the importance of comparing like with like. If you use figures of reported accidents then you can't compare them with hospital admissions, they are totally different sets of stats.
There is enough rubbish talked about accident statistics without another attempt to muddy the waters.
There is enough rubbish talked about accident statistics without another attempt to muddy the waters.
Ladyboy said said:
Road Safety Minister Stephen Ladyman said the study was misleading as police figures were more accurate than hospital data.
How can SI (KSI) be defined by a police officer at the scene of an accident though. Surely they(victim) get in the ambulance and once at the hospital doctors define seriously injured or not with regard to their injuries?
The fact the government brought out no robust tracking of KSI/road traffic accidents so they could monitor their progress says it all... if they had their inability to complete their promise would be evident. The fact they just cherry pick some stats years later to see which ones tell the story they want isn't surprising. The fact that any independant review is just slammed as being innacurate by Ladyboy just proves their ignorance further.
Dave
La la la I'm not listening said:
Road Safety Minister Stephen Ladyman said the study was misleading as police figures were more accurate than hospital data.
"The government is on track to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured by 40% and children by 50%.
"This paper provides no evidence to believe otherwise."
But then why would we expect anything else.
Edited by mechsympathy on Friday 23 June 09:12
I would love to know how these people can talk such utter c**p with a straight face... In relation to injuries, the police not the hospital can give the more accurate answer???!?!!!?? Please....
I wonder how many people have a minor bump, think nothing of it, then a day or two later when whiplash sets in, trundle down to the A&E for some painkillers....
I wonder how many people have a minor bump, think nothing of it, then a day or two later when whiplash sets in, trundle down to the A&E for some painkillers....
jasandjules said:
I would love to know how these people can talk such utter c**p with a straight face... In relation to injuries, the police not the hospital can give the more accurate answer???!?!!!?? Please....
I wonder how many people have a minor bump, think nothing of it, then a day or two later when whiplash sets in, trundle down to the A&E for some painkillers....
I wonder how many people have a minor bump, think nothing of it, then a day or two later when whiplash sets in, trundle down to the A&E for some painkillers....
yes but conversly, how many people are fine, but pop along to hospital just in case....
JMGS4 said:
I'd read somewhere that the "hospitalised" figures were massaged seriously as even suspected injuries were counted, even if all needed was an Elastoplast???? ANY figures which these lying scum of a government give out are suspect IMHO
All depends on the targets they need to hit. Funnily enough the Government set those too.....
Darth Dave said:
JMGS4 said:
I'd read somewhere that the "hospitalised" figures were massaged seriously as even suspected injuries were counted, even if all needed was an Elastoplast???? ANY figures which these lying scum of a government give out are suspect IMHO
All depends on the targets they need to hit. Funnily enough the Government set those too.....
Darth Dave said:
How can Police figures be more reliable than the Hospital data? The Hospitals treat the injured from the accidents and that's what they're measuring - the injured.
Do they not think that some people attend a Hospital the morning after an accident when the Police are no longer involved?
Do they not think that some people attend a Hospital the morning after an accident when the Police are no longer involved?
Ladyboy basically said:
The figures from the Hospital admissions make our figures look bad, therefore they are unreliable and the figures we have already are the best. Please swallow some more of our bullst
tMaybe we will have to address our coppers as DR coppers soon
This Gov's use of stats to monitor progress is way over the top as stats can be arranged to give any result you want especially when the Gov themselves positions the goal posts. Just like the 'crimes never been lower stat' - NO, we just don't bother repoting crime anymore as its a waste of time - utter crap. Even if there is a marked decrease in the number of serious injured I would put that down to safer cars not anything this useless Gov has done.
I was stopped at the side of the road once for a census - what a waste of time, obvious the questions were used to get the answers they needed no room for anything but A,B,C
As Benjamin Disraeli once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"
Just as a matter of interest I went and looked up the government's definition of 'seriously injured'.
Just as a matter of interest I went and looked up the government's definition of 'seriously injured'.
the DfT website said:
Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an in-patient, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident.
Slight injury: An injury of a minor character such as a sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside attention. This definition includes injuries not requiring medical treatment.
An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.
Slight injury: An injury of a minor character such as a sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside attention. This definition includes injuries not requiring medical treatment.
An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.
Edited by thegreenhell on Friday 23 June 12:02
More pish in The Indepedant...
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/heal
Nice to see they've repeated the crap that the Alliance Against Urban 4x4's have told them. How's that for original & factual journalistic research?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/heal
Nice to see they've repeated the crap that the Alliance Against Urban 4x4's have told them. How's that for original & factual journalistic research?
Edited by laser_jock99 on Friday 23 June 12:43
laser_jock99 said:
More pish in The Indepedant...
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/heal
Nice to see they've repeated the crap that the Alliance Against Urban 4x4's have told them. How's that for original & factual journalistic research?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/heal
Nice to see they've repeated the crap that the Alliance Against Urban 4x4's have told them. How's that for original & factual journalistic research?
Edited by laser_jock99 on Friday 23 June 12:43
Quite, that's the left-wing part of the media for you, jumping on anything to justify the chips on their shoulders.
The BBC was reporting an article in the BMJ:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidp
The BMJ article says that there has been NO improvement in serious injuries since 1996.
That's all the DfT claims blown out of the water then.
The BMJ article is precisely consistent with Safe Speed analysis published in Feb 2004:
www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html
Safe Speed issued the following PR at 13:59 this afternoon:
PR325: Serious road injuries not down means policy has failed
news: for immediate release
Apparently a recent study by Oxford University has found that despite Police
figures showing reduction in serious road injuries, when hospital figures are
used there has been no improvement since 1996.
This is EXACTLY as Safe Speed analysis of road crash trends has predicted.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "So now we see the truth. The roads are not
getting safer. Government road safety policy - supported only by dodgy
statistics has failed - and we can see it has failed."
"Speed cameras are at the centre of the failure and at the Safe Speed campaign
we know exactly how and why."
"The Department for Transport MUST immediately pull the plug on the failed and
dangerous speed camera programme."
"The government measure road safety and sets targets in 'KSI' - Killed and
seriously injured. The new data shows no improvement at all in KSI, despite the
proliferation of speed cameras and lower speed limits. Clearly these measures
are not delivering the safety improvements claimed and promised.
<ends>
The findings in the BMJ are momentous. If you read Safe Speed you will have had the clue over 2 years ago.
Safe Speed needs your support very badly. See: www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html Please help.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidp
The BMJ article says that there has been NO improvement in serious injuries since 1996.
That's all the DfT claims blown out of the water then.
The BMJ article is precisely consistent with Safe Speed analysis published in Feb 2004:
www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html
Safe Speed issued the following PR at 13:59 this afternoon:
PR325: Serious road injuries not down means policy has failed
news: for immediate release
Apparently a recent study by Oxford University has found that despite Police
figures showing reduction in serious road injuries, when hospital figures are
used there has been no improvement since 1996.
This is EXACTLY as Safe Speed analysis of road crash trends has predicted.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "So now we see the truth. The roads are not
getting safer. Government road safety policy - supported only by dodgy
statistics has failed - and we can see it has failed."
"Speed cameras are at the centre of the failure and at the Safe Speed campaign
we know exactly how and why."
"The Department for Transport MUST immediately pull the plug on the failed and
dangerous speed camera programme."
"The government measure road safety and sets targets in 'KSI' - Killed and
seriously injured. The new data shows no improvement at all in KSI, despite the
proliferation of speed cameras and lower speed limits. Clearly these measures
are not delivering the safety improvements claimed and promised.
<ends>
The findings in the BMJ are momentous. If you read Safe Speed you will have had the clue over 2 years ago.
Safe Speed needs your support very badly. See: www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html Please help.
safespeed said:
I was looking for that earlier. Here's their conclusion: Research said:
The overall fall seen in police statistics for non-fatal road traffic injuries probably represents a fall in completedness of reporting these injuries.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff