Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
singlecoil said:
You quoted me but didn't answer my question. But that's ok because I didn't for a moment expect you to.
Why does it make any difference... are you suggesting that cars passing within the limit present a danger to other road users??? 
You must be finally getting the message that other causes of accidents need addressing!
Mill Wheel said:
singlecoil said:
You quoted me but didn't answer my question. But that's ok because I didn't for a moment expect you to.
Why does it make any difference... are you suggesting that cars passing within the limit present a danger to other road users??? I believe that it is part of your case that the camera has no effect on road safety, but if it was found that the number fined was perhaps 5% of the total, then those figures could be taken to mean that the mere fact that people are slowing down in that area is helping to reduce accidents, and that therefore is is having a a beneficial effect. That's the problem with figures, of course, different people can use the same figures to prove (in their eyes) different theories.
singlecoil said:
Mill Wheel said:
singlecoil said:
You quoted me but didn't answer my question. But that's ok because I didn't for a moment expect you to.
Why does it make any difference... are you suggesting that cars passing within the limit present a danger to other road users??? I believe that it is part of your case that the camera has no effect on road safety, but if it was found that the number fined was perhaps 5% of the total, then those figures could be taken to mean that the mere fact that people are slowing down in that area is helping to reduce accidents, and that therefore is is having a a beneficial effect. That's the problem with figures, of course, different people can use the same figures to prove (in their eyes) different theories.
The newspaper article he refers to bears no relationship to figures and accidents at Ings or any other speed camera location in Cumbria; I can't find one on any site that lists the roundabout on the A65 between Kendal and Holme; is there one? If not how is that article relevant?
The response to the thread title is that the premise is wrong and speeding does cause accidents. Millwheel has exampled, through the newspaper article that not only speeding in excess of the speed limits causes accidents but speed that is in excess of what the conditions allow causes accidents and speed that is beyond a driver's ability or a mixture of those causes accidents. Well done to him for illustrating that.
The use of speed enforcement equipment alongside police enforcement as well as other measures serves to manage speed and hence reduce collisions and injuries. Reverting to police only enforcement is not a sensible or realistic prospect and why should it be done when the only apparent justification given is that the police officer can choose to 'give you a telling off with no penalty' that makes little sense and to be frank, it's juvenile to suggest such a thing as police officers can still do that.
It seems the thread proposal stems from a denial of reality.
Mill Wheel said:
A assume you are able to prove that Mr Gaskell didn't have a heart attack? 
For the third time, why did you claim a heart attack caused the crash? Where did you get that from? It's not in any of the reports so it looks to me like you're lying about a serious crash that badly hurt people in order to slag off cameras. Who told you a heart attack was involved, why can't you say?OTBC said:
For the third time, why did you claim a heart attack caused the crash? Where did you get that from? It's not in any of the reports so it looks to me like you're lying about a serious crash that badly hurt people in order to slag off cameras. Who told you a heart attack was involved, why can't you say?
Why did you deny posting a link to BRAKE (on the same page as your posted link)?Jon1967x said:
The original post was speed does not cause accidents. Since then a whole set of points have been argued and evidenced. My summary:
Actually - the OP's post was that speeding does not cause accidents - not speed.You can be travelling at a speed that is inappropriate for the conditions and cause an accident - without actually speeding. It's an important distinction that needs to be made.
Exceeding the speed limit is implicated in 12% of fatal accidents (4% of accidents overall).
Travelling too fast for the conditions accounts for 11% of fatal accidents (and 8% of accidents overall).
Of course some of those will be both speeding and travelling too fast for the conditions - but it is quite interesting that travelling too fast for the conditions seems to account for a much higher percentage of accidents than speeding.
Even if every "speeding" accident was classed as "travelling too fast for the conditions" - it means that half of the accidents involving travelling too fast for the conditions occur below the speed limit.
Also - how many of the fatalities are down to speeding alone. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to lump a normal motorist going a few mph over the limit with a joy rider blasting through the streets trying to evade the police. Yes both are technically speeding, but measures put in place to combat speeding will only be effective for the former - even though it may be the latter who are responsible for most of the casualties put down to speeding.
Those trying to minimise the role of speed in RTCS have been asked several times to explain the up to forty per cent reduction in collisions in twenty mph zones. None has.
Reduce speeds and you reduce both the likelihood of RTCS and the severity of the injuries. Even if you don't understand how this happens you can concede that reducing people getting hurt is what we all want, so why would you ignore twenty mph limits?
Reduce speeds and you reduce both the likelihood of RTCS and the severity of the injuries. Even if you don't understand how this happens you can concede that reducing people getting hurt is what we all want, so why would you ignore twenty mph limits?
OTBC said:
Reduce speeds and you reduce both the likelihood of RTCS and the severity of the injuries. Even if you don't understand how this happens you can concede that reducing people getting hurt is what we all want, so why would you ignore twenty mph limits?
I have no issue reducing speed where there is deemed to be a genuine benefit - but as happens time and again the argument being employed is open ended and unqualified.1. "Reduce speeds and you reduce both the likelihood of RTCS and the severity of the injuries."
Yep - but reduce them to what, in what circumstances, on what roads? Unless we state what level of reduction we are expecting or what level of reduction we would consider acceptable - how can we say that the limit reduction has been effective. Also after you have reduced them - the "reduce speed" argument is still valid - so what do you do - reduce them again, and again?
2. "you can concede that reducing people getting hurt is what we all want"
Again this is unqualified? Reduce people getting hurts is of course a noble cause - but what level of injury is acceptable given that we have to also maintain a workable road transport network and that reducing casualties to zero is likely to be impossible to achieve. Is continuing to reduce speed limits really the best or most effective way to go about reducing casualties?
Another thing to consider. As speed limits drop - isn't there a danger that more people will break the new lower limits. When drivers perceive that a limit is too low - they are more likely to break it (even the government conceded that drivers exceeding speed limits can be indicative that the speed limit has been set too low). As the number of casualties drops (as it has done for decades) - it's quite possible that the percentage attributed to "speeding" may actually go up. If this happens - then what. Drivers speeding and the percentage of casualties caused by speeding seems to be used as justification for lowering limits further - yet dropping the limits may actually be the cause of more drivers speeding.
Are we in danger of getting into a feedback loop whereby limits are reduced to combat speeding - but the reductions themselves cause an increase in the incidence of speeding - thereby justifying further reductions.
singlecoil said:
The reason why it makes a difference is that there is no point in your continually posting numbers of fines issued unless we know what proportion that is of the overall number of drivers that passed that camera.
I believe that it is part of your case that the camera has no effect on road safety, but if it was found that the number fined was perhaps 5% of the total, then those figures could be taken to mean that the mere fact that people are slowing down in that area is helping to reduce accidents, and that therefore is is having a a beneficial effect. That's the problem with figures, of course, different people can use the same figures to prove (in their eyes) different theories.
Posting that speed has an impact on accident outcomes has no relevance either, unless you have an accident where speed of any kind is a factor, yet it has been brought up several times here in this thread, which was actually about whether SPEEDING causes accidents.I believe that it is part of your case that the camera has no effect on road safety, but if it was found that the number fined was perhaps 5% of the total, then those figures could be taken to mean that the mere fact that people are slowing down in that area is helping to reduce accidents, and that therefore is is having a a beneficial effect. That's the problem with figures, of course, different people can use the same figures to prove (in their eyes) different theories.
The OP held the opinion that it does not. Others have sought to bring in all manner of irrelevant details.
The figures I have given show that on average, more than 16 motorists per day, every single day for three years including Christmas Day have been CAUGHT speeding past Ings, and yet speed has figures in only 3% of accidents along the whole of that stretch of road according to the police statistics giving CONTRIBUTORY factors, so the number of drivers who were not speeding has no bearing - unless you support that the NONE speeding drivers WERE responsible for the accidents - in which case prosecuting speeders as a safety measure has failed.
OTBC said:
For the third time, why did you claim a heart attack caused the crash? Where did you get that from? It's not in any of the reports so it looks to me like you're lying about a serious crash that badly hurt people in order to slag off cameras. Who told you a heart attack was involved, why can't you say?
It does not say in reports that his name was Mr Gaskell either, which you don't seem to be disputing despite the report says his family requested details be withheld - you obviously have not realised the victim of this crash was known to me - he used to be a customer!Mill Wheel said:
It does not say in reports that his name was Mr Gaskell either, which you don't seem to be disputing despite the report says his family requested details be withheld - you obviously have not realised the victim of this crash was known to me - he used to be a customer!
Ironically, there is one person, who has posted on this very thread, who knows full well what happened there and so is capable of verifying (or refuting) your story.But that person remains strangely quiet.
Perhaps he realises that there's no guarantee that even deleted web content will never show up again.
Phatboy317 said:
Ironically, there is one person, who has posted on this very thread, who knows full well what happened there and so is capable of verifying (or refuting) your story.
But that person remains strangely quiet.
Perhaps he realises that there's no guarantee that even deleted web content will never show up again.
Are you suggesting that person might be a former manager of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership, whose daughter happens to be named Emma, and who has previously used the ID of EMMAR on another forum?? But that person remains strangely quiet.
Perhaps he realises that there's no guarantee that even deleted web content will never show up again.
Heaven forbid... OTBC will be asking for proof of that next, however, I have no way of proving that either without wasting a great deal of my time looking for links, merely to satisfy strenuous efforts to derail the thread into a side discussion about integrity of certain posters.
Mill Wheel said:
Are you suggesting that person might be a former manager of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership, whose daughter happens to be named Emma, and who has previously used the ID of EMMAR on another forum??
Heaven forbid... OTBC will be asking for proof of that next, however, I have no way of proving that either without wasting a great deal of my time looking for links, merely to satisfy strenuous efforts to derail the thread into a side discussion about integrity of certain posters.
I couldn't possibly commentHeaven forbid... OTBC will be asking for proof of that next, however, I have no way of proving that either without wasting a great deal of my time looking for links, merely to satisfy strenuous efforts to derail the thread into a side discussion about integrity of certain posters.
Phatboy317 said:
Mill Wheel said:
Are you suggesting that person might be a former manager of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership, whose daughter happens to be named Emma, and who has previously used the ID of EMMAR on another forum??
Heaven forbid... OTBC will be asking for proof of that next, however, I have no way of proving that either without wasting a great deal of my time looking for links, merely to satisfy strenuous efforts to derail the thread into a side discussion about integrity of certain posters.
I couldn't possibly commentHeaven forbid... OTBC will be asking for proof of that next, however, I have no way of proving that either without wasting a great deal of my time looking for links, merely to satisfy strenuous efforts to derail the thread into a side discussion about integrity of certain posters.
Mill Wheel said:
Ings in Cumbria.
The drivers name was Mr Gaskell. His car overturned into a ditch after he first collided with the kerb on the opposite side of the road, and two workers on a building site close by held up the vehicle until the fire brigade turned up, saving him and his wife from drowning.
It was in the Westmorland Gazette.
Accidents at the camera site at Ings went UP following the introduction of speed cameras... including a drunk pedestrian walking home from the pub, who decided to lie down in the road where he was struck by a vehicle!
But he didn't have a heart attack, so why did you say he did? Who told you that?The drivers name was Mr Gaskell. His car overturned into a ditch after he first collided with the kerb on the opposite side of the road, and two workers on a building site close by held up the vehicle until the fire brigade turned up, saving him and his wife from drowning.
It was in the Westmorland Gazette.
Accidents at the camera site at Ings went UP following the introduction of speed cameras... including a drunk pedestrian walking home from the pub, who decided to lie down in the road where he was struck by a vehicle!
OTBC said:
But he didn't have a heart attack, so why did you say he did? Who told you that?
You say he didn't.This is about the accident being used in part to justify the speed camera.
The news report also said nothing about the accident being speed-related, so you have no argument anyway.
And if you're not prepared to lie in order to make your point, then why do you assume that others will?
Edited by Phatboy317 on Thursday 30th October 17:44
Moonhawk said:
Jon1967x said:
The original post was speed does not cause accidents. Since then a whole set of points have been argued and evidenced. My summary:
Actually - the OP's post was that speeding does not cause accidents - not speed.You can be travelling at a speed that is inappropriate for the conditions and cause an accident - without actually speeding. It's an important distinction that needs to be made.
Exceeding the speed limit is implicated in 12% of fatal accidents (4% of accidents overall).
Travelling too fast for the conditions accounts for 11% of fatal accidents (and 8% of accidents overall).
Of course some of those will be both speeding and travelling too fast for the conditions - but it is quite interesting that travelling too fast for the conditions seems to account for a much higher percentage of accidents than speeding.
Even if every "speeding" accident was classed as "travelling too fast for the conditions" - it means that half of the accidents involving travelling too fast for the conditions occur below the speed limit.
Also - how many of the fatalities are down to speeding alone. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to lump a normal motorist going a few mph over the limit with a joy rider blasting through the streets trying to evade the police. Yes both are technically speeding, but measures put in place to combat speeding will only be effective for the former - even though it may be the latter who are responsible for most of the casualties put down to speeding.
Jon1967x said:
Seems like a good argument for lower speed limits as inappropriate speed seems a very common cause of KSI without breaking the speed limit.
If the speed limit was 0mph then 100% of accidents would be in excess of the limit. But, by your logic, you would be using that as an argument for still lower limits?And, conversely, if the limit was 300mph then zero accidents would be in excess of the limit so surely, by your logic, you would be arguing for higher limits?
Anywhere you sit along the line between those two extremes, the logic is the wrong way around.
The limit is simply a line drawn in the sand - it has at best a loose connection with whether a speed is inappropriate or not - even on the same road at different times.
A lower speed limit, strictly enforced, may serve to reduce the number of inappropriate speed accidents, however it cannot, even at best, reduce the overall accident figure by more than the original 8% claimed, nor the overall fatalities by more than the original 11% claimed.
Yet, elsewhere, claims are made of huge reductions in accidents and casualties being down to poorly-enforced 20mph limits.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 31st October 06:11
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff