Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
vonhosen said:
And it could be somebody with a less developed sense/appreciation of speed having to make the judgement. It's not only about you, it's about catering for all & creating a framework that achieves the best compromise.
A minimum of 33% in such a case isn't a small difference.
I would say you are negligent for allowing someone with a less developed sense/appreciation of speed having to make the judgement call.A minimum of 33% in such a case isn't a small difference.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th October 23:48
My two year old might attempt to cross the road in front of the car, but it's my responsibility to ensure he doesn't.
The car driver cannot be held to blame for every imagined scenario, so stop trying to blame others for your sheer incompetence when you should know better.
emmaT2014 said:
It doesn't matter what caused the collision an increase in speed increases the potential for damage as you have pointed out. So why the pointless post?
I would say what causes the collision is a lot more important than the speed of the collision. There is little point getting everyone to slow down because of accidents if it turns out the accidents are caused by something else in the first place.The reality is that the media and a huge number of those living near roads where there are accidents like to blame speed and fail to comment on the other causes. Partly of course because they are making reports instantly after the event and before the causes have been investigated.
My own fear is that cars these days are much easier and more comfortable to drive with power steering, assisted braking etc, and of course much quieter, and this means people are no longer giving as much attention to driving, add in sat navs, GPS etc to further distract the driver. Maybe a faster speed means they take more attention?
rich888 said:
vonhosen said:
And it could be somebody with a less developed sense/appreciation of speed having to make the judgement. It's not only about you, it's about catering for all & creating a framework that achieves the best compromise.
A minimum of 33% in such a case isn't a small difference.
I would say you are negligent for allowing someone with a less developed sense/appreciation of speed having to make the judgement call.A minimum of 33% in such a case isn't a small difference.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 19th October 23:48
My two year old might attempt to cross the road in front of the car, but it's my responsibility to ensure he doesn't.
The car driver cannot be held to blame for every imagined scenario, so stop trying to blame others for your sheer incompetence when you should know better.
If the driver had been acting reasonably & a collision results then he wouldn't be blamed, if he doesn't act reasonably he'll be held to account for not doing so.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 20th October 00:48
DocSteve said:
I presume you work for the police, especially as your profile states you are from Hendon of driving school fame!
The reason I said that is because if you were to ask members of the public "what is the major cause of road accidents?" as a general question I am almost certain that the majority would say speeding.
I was on a stand at a road safety exhibition where a free one day 'introduction to advanced driving' training course was being offered. A comment from one driver, "I don't need extra training 'cause I always drive within the speed limit". Many people seemed to assume that the course would be mainly about not breaking the speed limit (it isn't). The reason I said that is because if you were to ask members of the public "what is the major cause of road accidents?" as a general question I am almost certain that the majority would say speeding.
Chrisgr31 said:
emmaT2014 said:
It doesn't matter what caused the collision an increase in speed increases the potential for damage as you have pointed out. So why the pointless post?
I would say what causes the collision is a lot more important than the speed of the collision. There is little point getting everyone to slow down because of accidents if it turns out the accidents are caused by something else in the first place.Naturally there needs to be a balance struck between the need for mobility and to be able to complete journeys in a reasonable time, and the need to reduce the severity of injuries. That's where you should take the argument if you are unhappy with current speed limits.
vonhosen said:
People were overtaking because?
They wanted to travel at a higher speed than others.
That does not necessarily equal speeding though. They wanted to travel at a higher speed than others.
I was behind a car yesterday doing between 25 and 30mph in a 50mph zone. Had I the opportunity, I could have overtaken him and carried on my journey at ~50mph (i.e. still within the speed limit.)
DocSteve said:
I wasn't disputing whether the public as a whole are happy with road safety efforts.
What I was saying is that the public generally consider speed to be the main issue when it comes to road safety. No doubt they may be happy with this but what is being said on here is that this is only one of many issues with respect to individual driving behaviour.
Take the adverts - hit a child at 40/30/20 and x/y/z happens: "It's 30 for a reason". How about focusing on anticipating and avoiding the child in the first place?
Anyway, it appears we are arguing about separate things and no doubt in fact hold similar views but are approaching them in different ways...
Well there are loads of public information adverts about looking twice for motorbikes, not texting, not using the phone. There are the annual don't drink and drive ones towards Christmas.What I was saying is that the public generally consider speed to be the main issue when it comes to road safety. No doubt they may be happy with this but what is being said on here is that this is only one of many issues with respect to individual driving behaviour.
Take the adverts - hit a child at 40/30/20 and x/y/z happens: "It's 30 for a reason". How about focusing on anticipating and avoiding the child in the first place?
Anyway, it appears we are arguing about separate things and no doubt in fact hold similar views but are approaching them in different ways...
I think there are more adverts that do not mention speed than ones that do, and I also think most people would put driver error down as the biggest cause of collisions.
robinessex said:
Similar situation near me. 3 accidents in a year on NSL single carriageway road. Call for lower speed limit, so it's now 50mph. Except, ALL the accidents were head on's whilst overtaking. Nothing to do with speed.
They lowered the speed limit through my village recently from 40 to 30. In the wider area around the village they also reduced various stretches from 60 to 40 and 60 to 50.This despite the fact that a local councillor (who refused to be named) admitting that, to his knowledge, there had never been a serious accident.
It's odd because my local council claim to be following the government's guidance when reducing speed limits - yet that same guidance states explicitly that the setting of limits should be "evidence led".
emmaT2014 said:
Mill Wheel said:
emmaT2014 said:
DocSteve said:
I suppose if every factor remained the same - driving skill level, conditions, vehicle etc etc - then the faster you go the more likely an accident is to occur and the more severe the outcome may be. This is probably pretty much indisputable unless you argue that driving slowly causes some drivers to lose concentration and paradoxically more likely to have an accident.
The trouble is the focus seems to mainly be on speed with regard to road safety rather than all the other factors that are important.
No it isn't.The trouble is the focus seems to mainly be on speed with regard to road safety rather than all the other factors that are important.
List all UK road safety programs and then analyse the list to see if "the focus seems to mainly be on speed with regard to road safety" is justifiable. When you do as I suggest you will find it is not.
I'm not listing them for it was not I that made the first idle claim.
Secondly, speeding in excess of the legal limit accounts for only 5% of accident causation - evidenced in the DfT Stats 19 figures. Yet most councils all over Britain are spending far in excess of 5% of their road safety grants on speed reduction measures and enforcement via cameras in a desperate attempt to reduce figures to meet targets.
One exception to that was SWINDON, who compared their previous spending on speed enforcement with the percentage of accident causes, and elected to stop paying for enforcement, and spend the grant on measures to combat the other 95% of causes.
The predicted carnage on their roads never happened!
In many areas, councils are reducing speed limits in a bid to cut road deaths and injuries - and figures show that this too is not reducing accidents! In my own area, the council pedestrianised a road that had been heavily congested, but had no fatalities, and within months they had their FIRST FATALITY when an elderly lady stepped in front of a bus which was allowed into the area... a huge percentage increase on their previously unblemished record!
In Lancashire, they were quick to embrace the 20 mph limits on minor roads, and there too, there has been no improvement in KSIs yet the 20mph roundels costing £80 each were a HUGE investment in speed reduction over the whole county, at the expense of the REAL causes of accidents on their roads.
A month or so ago, Cumbria and Lancashire were under fire from the IAM for not reducing their KSIs - and these are two counties that have spent heavily on speed reduction and enforcement... as far back as 2003/2004 Cumbria Safety Cameras cost £1 million to run for one year.
I use the term ENFORCEMENT lightly, as they don't actually STOP speeding - they invoice you later in the week!!
Mill Wheel said:
Firstly, the OPs assertion was that speeding does not cause accidents. Correct, as in nearly all cases it is merely a contributory factor, excepting when a vehicle slides off on a bend through excess speed.
Secondly, speeding in excess of the legal limit accounts for only 5% of accident causation - evidenced in the DfT Stats 19 figures. Yet most councils all over Britain are spending far in excess of 5% of their road safety grants on speed reduction measures and enforcement via cameras in a desperate attempt to reduce figures to meet targets.
One exception to that was SWINDON, who compared their previous spending on speed enforcement with the percentage of accident causes, and elected to stop paying for enforcement, and spend the grant on measures to combat the other 95% of causes.
The predicted carnage on their roads never happened!
In many areas, councils are reducing speed limits in a bid to cut road deaths and injuries - and figures show that this too is not reducing accidents! In my own area, the council pedestrianised a road that had been heavily congested, but had no fatalities, and within months they had their FIRST FATALITY when an elderly lady stepped in front of a bus which was allowed into the area... a huge percentage increase on their previously unblemished record!
In Lancashire, they were quick to embrace the 20 mph limits on minor roads, and there too, there has been no improvement in KSIs yet the 20mph roundels costing £80 each were a HUGE investment in speed reduction over the whole county, at the expense of the REAL causes of accidents on their roads.
A month or so ago, Cumbria and Lancashire were under fire from the IAM for not reducing their KSIs - and these are two counties that have spent heavily on speed reduction and enforcement... as far back as 2003/2004 Cumbria Safety Cameras cost £1 million to run for one year.
I use the term ENFORCEMENT lightly, as they don't actually STOP speeding - they invoice you later in the week!!
None of that addresses the claim though. You have merely set out a few points you claim are examples of where speed enforcement has or has not made an apparent positive difference. How does that set out a case that the main focus of road safety is speed or indeed that it is in place of all others?Secondly, speeding in excess of the legal limit accounts for only 5% of accident causation - evidenced in the DfT Stats 19 figures. Yet most councils all over Britain are spending far in excess of 5% of their road safety grants on speed reduction measures and enforcement via cameras in a desperate attempt to reduce figures to meet targets.
One exception to that was SWINDON, who compared their previous spending on speed enforcement with the percentage of accident causes, and elected to stop paying for enforcement, and spend the grant on measures to combat the other 95% of causes.
The predicted carnage on their roads never happened!
In many areas, councils are reducing speed limits in a bid to cut road deaths and injuries - and figures show that this too is not reducing accidents! In my own area, the council pedestrianised a road that had been heavily congested, but had no fatalities, and within months they had their FIRST FATALITY when an elderly lady stepped in front of a bus which was allowed into the area... a huge percentage increase on their previously unblemished record!
In Lancashire, they were quick to embrace the 20 mph limits on minor roads, and there too, there has been no improvement in KSIs yet the 20mph roundels costing £80 each were a HUGE investment in speed reduction over the whole county, at the expense of the REAL causes of accidents on their roads.
A month or so ago, Cumbria and Lancashire were under fire from the IAM for not reducing their KSIs - and these are two counties that have spent heavily on speed reduction and enforcement... as far back as 2003/2004 Cumbria Safety Cameras cost £1 million to run for one year.
I use the term ENFORCEMENT lightly, as they don't actually STOP speeding - they invoice you later in the week!!
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the costs of Safety Camera Partnerships, especially in 2003/4 because at that time the costs were fully recovered and the costs were neutral in the local government areas. Maybe you have missed that of have deliberately omitted it for effect. Have you?
v12Legs said:
Well there are loads of public information adverts about looking twice for motorbikes, not texting, not using the phone. There are the annual don't drink and drive ones towards Christmas.
One thing I have noticed though - most of these adverts seem to be aimed at drivers. Back when I was a child - many road safety adverts seemed to be aimed towards kids/pedestrians - educating them (and in some cases scaring them).
IMO - the onus on road safety has shifted to far in the direction of the driver. Of course drivers need to be compliant and adverts aimed at them are important - but at the same time, to take a car on the road requires some level of education and training - whereas to take to the road as a pedestrian requires none.
Pedestrians are bound by the rules of the highway code - just as drivers are. They are also responsible for many of the accidents that do happen (according to DFT statistics - in 21% of fatal accidents involving pedestrians - the main contributory factor was down to the actions of the pedestrian).
Going back to the point made about the road safety advert involving the child. Had you been travelling at 30 instead of 40 - there would be an 80% chance she would live. Perhaps - but if she hadn't stepped out in front of the car in the first place - there would be a 100% chance she would have lived.
"Secondly, speeding in excess of the legal limit accounts for only 5% of accident causation - evidenced in the DfT Stats 19 figures. Yet most councils all over Britain are spending far in excess of 5% of their road safety grants on speed reduction"
It's almost as if the speedophiles exist in a bubble of impenetrable ignorance..
This "5%" figure is regularly trotted out. It's piffle. It's made up, plucked out of thin air, you won't find it repeated anywhere with a scrap of authenticity, it's usually the Association of British Drivers who post that lie, them or the new defunct Safespeeding website, set up by a man in a shed with zero academically background and zero training in road safety.
That 5% myth has been posted here a few times! it's been corrected! the correction is ignored and hey presto! there it is again. Boring, dishonest, and recklessly irresponsible, it's very much like the boast of drunk drivers that a couple of pints make them drive better.
It's almost as if the speedophiles exist in a bubble of impenetrable ignorance..
This "5%" figure is regularly trotted out. It's piffle. It's made up, plucked out of thin air, you won't find it repeated anywhere with a scrap of authenticity, it's usually the Association of British Drivers who post that lie, them or the new defunct Safespeeding website, set up by a man in a shed with zero academically background and zero training in road safety.
That 5% myth has been posted here a few times! it's been corrected! the correction is ignored and hey presto! there it is again. Boring, dishonest, and recklessly irresponsible, it's very much like the boast of drunk drivers that a couple of pints make them drive better.
How dangerous is speed? The ABD'S lonely 'factoid' and the real world
The Association of British Drivers (ABD) likes to cite a Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) report as a source for the true contribution of speed to road crashes and casualties. ABD members use the TRL report to contradict the 'mainstream' figure indicating that at least one-third of crashes are speed-related. According to the ABD, the TRL report proves that the true figure is under 5%. This is the only source of such a low figure. The ABD and a few motor lobby journalists are the only people to use it, generally to support the argument that "it is not speed but bad driving that is dangerous". The ABD especially likes to use the figure in letters to local papers where highway authorities are implementing speed control measures in response to deaths and serious injuries or local demands for safer communities. (Their preferred technique is for one or two writers to flood papers with pseudonymously penned letters to make it appear they have widespread public support.)
http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1...
The Association of British Drivers (ABD) likes to cite a Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) report as a source for the true contribution of speed to road crashes and casualties. ABD members use the TRL report to contradict the 'mainstream' figure indicating that at least one-third of crashes are speed-related. According to the ABD, the TRL report proves that the true figure is under 5%. This is the only source of such a low figure. The ABD and a few motor lobby journalists are the only people to use it, generally to support the argument that "it is not speed but bad driving that is dangerous". The ABD especially likes to use the figure in letters to local papers where highway authorities are implementing speed control measures in response to deaths and serious injuries or local demands for safer communities. (Their preferred technique is for one or two writers to flood papers with pseudonymously penned letters to make it appear they have widespread public support.)
http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1...
OTBC said:
"Secondly, speeding in excess of the legal limit accounts for only 5% of accident causation - evidenced in the DfT Stats 19 figures. Yet most councils all over Britain are spending far in excess of 5% of their road safety grants on speed reduction"
It's almost as if the speedophiles exist in a bubble of impenetrable ignorance..
This "5%" figure is regularly trotted out. It's piffle. It's made up, plucked out of thin air, you won't find it repeated anywhere with a scrap of authenticity, it's usually the Association of British Drivers who post that lie, them or the new defunct Safespeeding website, set up by a man in a shed with zero academically background and zero training in road safety.
That 5% myth has been posted here a few times! it's been corrected! the correction is ignored and hey presto! there it is again. Boring, dishonest, and recklessly irresponsible, it's very much like the boast of drunk drivers that a couple of pints make them drive better.
Speedophiles? Are you for real?It's almost as if the speedophiles exist in a bubble of impenetrable ignorance..
This "5%" figure is regularly trotted out. It's piffle. It's made up, plucked out of thin air, you won't find it repeated anywhere with a scrap of authenticity, it's usually the Association of British Drivers who post that lie, them or the new defunct Safespeeding website, set up by a man in a shed with zero academically background and zero training in road safety.
That 5% myth has been posted here a few times! it's been corrected! the correction is ignored and hey presto! there it is again. Boring, dishonest, and recklessly irresponsible, it's very much like the boast of drunk drivers that a couple of pints make them drive better.
Speedophiles are not to be confused with paedophiles. Speeding drivers are far more likely to kill or injure a child than a paedophile is. Eight children a year are abducted and murdered by paedophiles in the UK, a shocking figure. Ten children a day and killed or seriously injured by drivers, a third of them speeding. Speeding drivers are a much bigger danger to children than paedophiles are, they inflict more injuries, more deaths and more misery. Chemical castration would have my support if it worked against stupid, selfish and reckless drivers who rely on a load of old b
ks from the ABD to justify their criminality.
ks from the ABD to justify their criminality.OTBC said:
It's almost as if the speedophiles exist in a bubble of impenetrable ignorance..
This "5%" figure is regularly trotted out. It's piffle. It's made up, plucked out of thin air, you won't find it repeated anywhere with a scrap of authenticity, it's usually the Association of British Drivers who post that lie, them or the new defunct Safespeeding website, set up by a man in a shed with zero academically background and zero training in road safety.
That 5% myth has been posted here a few times! it's been corrected! the correction is ignored and hey presto! there it is again. Boring, dishonest, and recklessly irresponsible, it's very much like the boast of drunk drivers that a couple of pints make them drive better.
Speedophiles - haha, I also was laughing at that phrase..... anyways...This "5%" figure is regularly trotted out. It's piffle. It's made up, plucked out of thin air, you won't find it repeated anywhere with a scrap of authenticity, it's usually the Association of British Drivers who post that lie, them or the new defunct Safespeeding website, set up by a man in a shed with zero academically background and zero training in road safety.
That 5% myth has been posted here a few times! it's been corrected! the correction is ignored and hey presto! there it is again. Boring, dishonest, and recklessly irresponsible, it's very much like the boast of drunk drivers that a couple of pints make them drive better.
The 5% figure that is used is a number determined from the national accident database of road traffic KSI figures.
The police accident investigators use their particular set of skilled knowledge with the use of various equipment in order to determine the primary causes of any accident/collision they are called out to investigate.
The cause(s) is logged and entered on to a database of accidents.
The database is such that one can check through the entries and determine the primary causes, the results are actually available on FOI requests.
You can prove yourself wrong by making such a request if you like Mr OBTC ?
The reason I am able to make this post is because from time to time I work with the database and I notice that speeding (ie. travelling faster than the posted speed limit) is not frequently, in the broad scope of things, a primary cause of KSI accidents.
Driving without due care and attention, adverse road/weather conditions, drug/drunk driving as examples, far outweigh 'speeding' as a common causality.
OTBC said:
Speedophiles are not to be confused with paedophiles. Speeding drivers are far more likely to kill or injure a child than a paedophile is. Eight children a year are abducted and murdered by paedophiles in the UK, a shocking figure. Ten children a day and killed or seriously injured by drivers, a third of them speeding. Speeding drivers are a much bigger danger to children than paedophiles are, they inflict more injuries, more deaths and more misery. Chemical castration would have my support if it worked against stupid, selfish and reckless drivers who rely on a load of old bks from the ABD to justify their criminality.
Riiiight. So what you are saying is, that doing 74 mph on the motorway is on a level with kiddy fiddling. OK then.....ks from the ABD to justify their criminality.With comments like that you'd almost thing you were some sort of militant cyclist. Oh.
AA999 said:
Speedophiles - haha, I also was laughing at that phrase..... anyways...
The 5% figure that is used is a number determined from the national accident database of road traffic KSI figures.
The police accident investigators use their particular set of skilled knowledge with the use of various equipment in order to determine the primary causes of any accident/collision they are called out to investigate.
The cause(s) is logged and entered on to a database of accidents.
The database is such that one can check through the entries and determine the primary causes, the results are actually available on FOI requests.
You can prove yourself wrong by making such a request if you like Mr OBTC ?
The reason I am able to make this post is because from time to time I work with the database and I notice that speeding (ie. travelling faster than the posted speed limit) is not frequently, in the broad scope of things, a primary cause of KSI accidents.
Driving without due care and attention, adverse road/weather conditions, drug/drunk driving as examples, far outweigh 'speeding' as a common causality.
And yet RAS50001 publication from ONS gives 15% of fatal and 6% of serious. The only way of getting the number to 5% is by including slight accidents - I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out why exceeding the limit is a low % of contributory factors for slight accidents.The 5% figure that is used is a number determined from the national accident database of road traffic KSI figures.
The police accident investigators use their particular set of skilled knowledge with the use of various equipment in order to determine the primary causes of any accident/collision they are called out to investigate.
The cause(s) is logged and entered on to a database of accidents.
The database is such that one can check through the entries and determine the primary causes, the results are actually available on FOI requests.
You can prove yourself wrong by making such a request if you like Mr OBTC ?
The reason I am able to make this post is because from time to time I work with the database and I notice that speeding (ie. travelling faster than the posted speed limit) is not frequently, in the broad scope of things, a primary cause of KSI accidents.
Driving without due care and attention, adverse road/weather conditions, drug/drunk driving as examples, far outweigh 'speeding' as a common causality.
The 5% figure is at best a wilful misrepresentation of the figures, and at worst an outright falsehood.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff