UK Report Shows Only 2% of Accidents Caused by Speeding
Discussion
From http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1974.asp
I don't suppose we'll see a retraction of any statements previously made, or any change in policy given the control that cameras can exert over the population.
The Newspaper said:
UK Report Shows Only 2 Percent of Accidents Caused by Speeding
UK Department for Transport report shows only two percent of accidents among drivers over 25 are caused by exceeding the speed limit.
Only two percent of road accidents were caused by adult drivers exceeding the posted speed limit, according to the UK Department for Transport (DfT). The figures were provided earlier this year in an official report to the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport regarding the impact of novice drivers. The DfT based its analysis on 147,509 accidents ranging in severity from slight to fatal.
"In 2005, for the first time, the Department collected data on contributory factors to road traffic accidents," the report stated. "Several of these factors are attributed to drivers up to the age of 25 in much higher proportions of cases than for older drivers."
The report showed that even among the youngest drivers, aged 17-19, only eight percent of accidents were caused by exceeding the posted speed limit. The more prominent factors were "loss of control," accounting for nineteen percent of accidents; "careless, reckless or in a hurry," accounting for fourteen percent; "traveling too fast for the conditions," fourteen percent; and "slippery road due to weather," at twelve percent.
The factors drop correspondingly as the age brackets changed to cover more experienced drivers. The figure for exceeding the posted speed limit drops to six percent among drivers aged 17-25 and to just two percent for drivers above age 25. Road safety expert Paul Smith, founder of Safe Speed, points out that UK government officials previously claimed one-third of accidents were "speed related" to justify the installation of more than six thousand speed cameras throughout the country.
"Recent road safety policy has been founded on a gross misunderstanding of road safety fundamentals," Smith explained. "We have never had a national problem with speeding. To get road safety back on track, DfT must admit that it has been chasing rainbows; pull the plug on the failed speed camera program and refocus national efforts on improving driver quality and effective roads policing."
The figures match those that Smith discovered buried deep in the DfT report Contributory Factors to Road Accidents released last year (view report). Younger motorists, aged 18 to 21 account for just three percent of licensed drivers in the UK.
"Problems associated with young drivers mainly represent skills or attitude shortfalls in a minority of inexperienced drivers," Smith said. "It is unreasonable to claim that speed cameras could address this problem to any significant degree. For the rest of us, speed cameras are a dangerous distraction at best."
Source: Evidence Submitted to the Select Committee on Transport (UK Department for Transport, 7/19/2007)
So we finally have a government-backed figure for accidents caused by speeding! And now the evidence is in, we can see that the next step to be taken by the DfT will be the removal of all speed cameras because it's obvious they're focused on the wrong thing if they really want to improve road safety. Oh no, sorry, wrong script, the speed cameras are there to reduce CO2 emissions because UK cars are responsible for 120% of global emissions. And the government needs the money from fines to prop up failing banks.UK Department for Transport report shows only two percent of accidents among drivers over 25 are caused by exceeding the speed limit.
Only two percent of road accidents were caused by adult drivers exceeding the posted speed limit, according to the UK Department for Transport (DfT). The figures were provided earlier this year in an official report to the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport regarding the impact of novice drivers. The DfT based its analysis on 147,509 accidents ranging in severity from slight to fatal.
"In 2005, for the first time, the Department collected data on contributory factors to road traffic accidents," the report stated. "Several of these factors are attributed to drivers up to the age of 25 in much higher proportions of cases than for older drivers."
The report showed that even among the youngest drivers, aged 17-19, only eight percent of accidents were caused by exceeding the posted speed limit. The more prominent factors were "loss of control," accounting for nineteen percent of accidents; "careless, reckless or in a hurry," accounting for fourteen percent; "traveling too fast for the conditions," fourteen percent; and "slippery road due to weather," at twelve percent.
The factors drop correspondingly as the age brackets changed to cover more experienced drivers. The figure for exceeding the posted speed limit drops to six percent among drivers aged 17-25 and to just two percent for drivers above age 25. Road safety expert Paul Smith, founder of Safe Speed, points out that UK government officials previously claimed one-third of accidents were "speed related" to justify the installation of more than six thousand speed cameras throughout the country.
"Recent road safety policy has been founded on a gross misunderstanding of road safety fundamentals," Smith explained. "We have never had a national problem with speeding. To get road safety back on track, DfT must admit that it has been chasing rainbows; pull the plug on the failed speed camera program and refocus national efforts on improving driver quality and effective roads policing."
The figures match those that Smith discovered buried deep in the DfT report Contributory Factors to Road Accidents released last year (view report). Younger motorists, aged 18 to 21 account for just three percent of licensed drivers in the UK.
"Problems associated with young drivers mainly represent skills or attitude shortfalls in a minority of inexperienced drivers," Smith said. "It is unreasonable to claim that speed cameras could address this problem to any significant degree. For the rest of us, speed cameras are a dangerous distraction at best."
Source: Evidence Submitted to the Select Committee on Transport (UK Department for Transport, 7/19/2007)
I don't suppose we'll see a retraction of any statements previously made, or any change in policy given the control that cameras can exert over the population.
In a thread when I suggested the motorway speed limit be raised, Vonhosen gave the reason of increased traffic volumes as justification alone for not doing so. Then there is the issue of global warming.
Going on Tony Bliar's figures in his response to the on-line petition for raising the motorway limit to 80, congestion was cited as one of the main reasons. He reckoned that for 55% of the time you travel along a motorway you are in free-flowing conditions. By 2010 he claimed that this free-flowing time would drop to 34% thus obviating any benefit from raising the speed limit. With less than three years to go before then, apparently we can expect a sudden increase in traffic volumes on our motorways! Presumably much of this extra traffic will be generated by cars with Polish, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Romanian number plates, all of which will probably still be able to evade prosecution by any form of electronic remote surveillance...
55% is still "most of the time" so why not allow drivers to make reasonable progress when the opportunity arises for them to do so in complete safety?
I fail to see any possible relationship between traffic volumes, speed and accident rates when you consider that when the 70 mph motorway speed limit was introduced annual death rates were around the 6000 mark. Since then this death rate has nearly halved and yet traffic volumes have quadrupled. Electronic signage warning of queues ahead and keeping appropriate distance behind the vehicle in front should suffice to eliminate the risk of collision caused by speed on the approach to a queue of slow-moving traffic.
Speed limits at best serve as damage limitation not damage prevention. I also believe that the former comes at the expense of the latter when overemphasis on the simplistic speed-kills mantra makes for some very complacent and inattentive driving in the comfort zone of an arbitrary posted speed limit.
It is also claimed that many of the barriers and other safety features of our motorways only work effectively up to 75mph. Given that a significant proportion of car drivers are exceeding this notional safe limit, raising the legal limit would in itself necessitate improving road design and the effectiveness of barriers at higher speeds thus making the motorway safer for drivers to continue driving at speeds they already do anyway, but more safely as well as legally.
The government is perhaps not going to bother with safety as the excuse in the future; it will be global warming instead, even though many new cars are designed to have a lower carbon footprint at higher speeds. My own car, for example, at 80 mph in sixth gear does 2000 rpm and over 60 mpg. I can get from mid Staffs to Manchester along the M6 and back for less than a tenner in diesel driving at an indicated 80mph. Travelling in the middle of the day and evening rush hour as I do quite frequently, congestion forcing traffic flow speeds to below the 70 mph limit are still quite rare even o0n this very busy motorway.
Any old excuse will be used to keep speed limits low and justify the revenue generated by drivers caught safely exceeding them. Even with no justification whatsoever this government has an overwhelming instinct of control. It really is as simple as that.
Going on Tony Bliar's figures in his response to the on-line petition for raising the motorway limit to 80, congestion was cited as one of the main reasons. He reckoned that for 55% of the time you travel along a motorway you are in free-flowing conditions. By 2010 he claimed that this free-flowing time would drop to 34% thus obviating any benefit from raising the speed limit. With less than three years to go before then, apparently we can expect a sudden increase in traffic volumes on our motorways! Presumably much of this extra traffic will be generated by cars with Polish, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Romanian number plates, all of which will probably still be able to evade prosecution by any form of electronic remote surveillance...
55% is still "most of the time" so why not allow drivers to make reasonable progress when the opportunity arises for them to do so in complete safety?
I fail to see any possible relationship between traffic volumes, speed and accident rates when you consider that when the 70 mph motorway speed limit was introduced annual death rates were around the 6000 mark. Since then this death rate has nearly halved and yet traffic volumes have quadrupled. Electronic signage warning of queues ahead and keeping appropriate distance behind the vehicle in front should suffice to eliminate the risk of collision caused by speed on the approach to a queue of slow-moving traffic.
Speed limits at best serve as damage limitation not damage prevention. I also believe that the former comes at the expense of the latter when overemphasis on the simplistic speed-kills mantra makes for some very complacent and inattentive driving in the comfort zone of an arbitrary posted speed limit.
It is also claimed that many of the barriers and other safety features of our motorways only work effectively up to 75mph. Given that a significant proportion of car drivers are exceeding this notional safe limit, raising the legal limit would in itself necessitate improving road design and the effectiveness of barriers at higher speeds thus making the motorway safer for drivers to continue driving at speeds they already do anyway, but more safely as well as legally.
The government is perhaps not going to bother with safety as the excuse in the future; it will be global warming instead, even though many new cars are designed to have a lower carbon footprint at higher speeds. My own car, for example, at 80 mph in sixth gear does 2000 rpm and over 60 mpg. I can get from mid Staffs to Manchester along the M6 and back for less than a tenner in diesel driving at an indicated 80mph. Travelling in the middle of the day and evening rush hour as I do quite frequently, congestion forcing traffic flow speeds to below the 70 mph limit are still quite rare even o0n this very busy motorway.
Any old excuse will be used to keep speed limits low and justify the revenue generated by drivers caught safely exceeding them. Even with no justification whatsoever this government has an overwhelming instinct of control. It really is as simple as that.
Edited by Steven Toy on Tuesday 18th September 15:02
Bing o said:
Maybe they should put up "inappropriate speed cameras" (fnaar fnaar).
I'm waiting for our anti-speed proponents to come rushing in to the defence of speed limits.....
Actually that's a good point. If limits were lower then a larger percentage of accidents would be caused by speeding, thus proving the need for lower speed limits....I'm waiting for our anti-speed proponents to come rushing in to the defence of speed limits.....
Assuming that scenario is valid, it's amazing that, given speed limits have been tumbling for several years now, we still find that a miniscule proportion of accidents are caused by speeding.
It's interesting, but the government seem to have a completely different set of statistics to draw upon that claims a much larger proportion of accidents to speeding (IIRC by including everything where it was a "contributory factor" as well as the sole cause) and then you have the "road safety charity" set, who come from this bizarro world where exceeding the speed limit causes babies to suffocate, old women to fall down stairs and pets to rend themselves asunder, as well as causing appromixately 1600% of road traffic accidents.
streaky said:
Reports yesterday that the government has yet again admitted that the KSI figures used to justify scameras are wrong ... but never mind, eh? - Streaky
Why let facts get in the way of policy though.Does anyone know how many
Lets hope for a cold and lonely Christmas for the scum.
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.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.Lostusernamedamn 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.You could do it for your DSA test, you have to be able to do it afterwards as well.
I don't consider anyone an advanced driver, who can't adhere to limits.
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 bo
ocks. 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".
Take a look at this, and then tell me Scameras are not there for the revenue.
Its all bo
ocks. 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".
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 ?Take a look at this, and then tell me Scameras are not there for the revenue.
Its all bo
ocks. 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".
The pockets of non offenders ?
Where does the money for SCPs come from ?
The pockets of offenders ?
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 ?Take a look at this, and then tell me Scameras are not there for the revenue.
Its all bo
ocks. 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".
The pockets of non offenders ?
Where does the money for SCPs come from ?
The pockets of offenders ?
what do you say to the seven people in the two years that were attacked
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.Take a look at this, and then tell me Scameras are not there for the revenue.
Its all bo
ocks. 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".
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?
SplatSpeed said:
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 ?Take a look at this, and then tell me Scameras are not there for the revenue.
Its all bo
ocks. 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".
The pockets of non offenders ?
Where does the money for SCPs come from ?
The pockets of offenders ?
what do you say to the seven people in the two years that were attacked
It takes very few Police officers to prosecute a lot of speeders with modern technology.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 18th September 18:34
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff