RE: Speeding not root of accidents: official
Wednesday 2nd November 2005
Most don't speed irresponsiblyA recently released official report, "In depth study of Motorcycle Accidents", states that only 3.5 per cent of crashes involved exceeding the speed limit, so most people break speed limits responsibly, according to road safety campaign Safe Speed.
Speeding not root of accidents: official
Government study finds that speeding doesn't cause accidents
Most don't speed irresponsibly
Of those only 62 per cent involved the motorcyclist speeding, so only 2.2 per cent of motorcyclists were speeding when they crashed. This contrasts with literally 100 per cent of respondents who admitted speeding, with 58 per cent admitting speeding 'always' or 'frequently', said Safe Speed.
Safe Speed founder Paul Smith said: "Every single time we obtain or derive information about the involvement of 'speeding' in crash contribution the figures are absolutely tiny. While speeding is extremely commonplace, with 60 per cent of vehicles speeding at sample sites on most road types, we always find that well over 95 per cent of crashes do not involve speeding.
"One might conclude that 'speeding' is at least 10 times safer than 'not speeding' based on these figures, but the truth is that speeding and crashes take place largely at different places and different times. The reason is simple. Drivers and riders tend to speed where the road is clear and tend to slow down where there are hazards that may cause a crash. This behaviour is vital to road safety.
"Once again these figures show how misguided government road safety policy is. Ninety per cent of the effort is directed towards three per cent of the problem. Unfortunately this means that 98 per cent of crash causes are inadequately addressed -- a sin of omission that makes the roads far more dangerous than they should be.
"While motorcyclists take a great deal of criticism for being reckless speeders, this report reveals the vital truth that almost all of them use speed safely and responsibly almost all of the time."
According to Safe Speed, "it is extremely misleading when the DfT claims - as it recently has - that about 30 per cent of fatalities involve 'excessive speed'". This is, according to the campaign, because:
- Most of the 30 per cent does not involve exceeding a speed limit. 'Excessive speed' in these terms includes both exceeding a speed limit and travelling at an inappropriate speed for the conditions. We know from sample data that 70 per cent of excessive speed crashes do not involve 'speeding'.
- A significant proportion of the remainder involves extremely reckless behaviours that are alien to most of the people affected by speed enforcement.
- Such behaviours include speeding drunks, speeding stolen vehicles, reckless types racing on the highway and so on.
Safe Speed said it estimated that fewer than five per cent of all roads fatalities involve otherwise responsible motorists travelling in excess of a speed limit.
Discussion
Speeding doesn't cause accidents.
Innapropriate speed probably still causes lots of accidents though, below the speed "limit"
Ie, thrashing it along, speeding, say 90mph, get to a corner, go round it at 40mph, 20mph under the national limit say, and slide off the road. The corner is good for 35mph, but not 40mph.
You were not technically speeding, but you were going too fast for the conditions.
Still, the article proves that technical "speeding" isn't dangerous, it's inappropriate speed that is the problem, and this is not black and white, it varies every second as cars move, weather changes etc.
Camera's can't judge what is appropriate speed, so really the data shows that monitoring the "limit" is not effective, monitoring appropriateness of speed would be infinitely more effective. Traffic Officers in cars can judge appropriate speed very well, and they can also see lots of other dangerous activities while they are at it!
Wow, could TrafPol really solve alot of issues on the road
Dave
Innapropriate speed probably still causes lots of accidents though, below the speed "limit"
Ie, thrashing it along, speeding, say 90mph, get to a corner, go round it at 40mph, 20mph under the national limit say, and slide off the road. The corner is good for 35mph, but not 40mph.
You were not technically speeding, but you were going too fast for the conditions.
Still, the article proves that technical "speeding" isn't dangerous, it's inappropriate speed that is the problem, and this is not black and white, it varies every second as cars move, weather changes etc.
Camera's can't judge what is appropriate speed, so really the data shows that monitoring the "limit" is not effective, monitoring appropriateness of speed would be infinitely more effective. Traffic Officers in cars can judge appropriate speed very well, and they can also see lots of other dangerous activities while they are at it!
Wow, could TrafPol really solve alot of issues on the road
Dave
Of course most of us drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions. But the government will never give up such a ready source of revenue. It is time action is taken. By their lies and misinformation, mis quoting facts and general disregard for law, they have brought the law of the land and the courts into disrepute, the police are hated by many motorists and have lost any credibility in eyes of the public.
I have been following this tread with a great deal of interest and I'm glad that the truth is now coming out.
I am a firm beleiver that it is incomptence and inattention that kills.
Just imagine how safe the roads would be now if this government had invested the millions of pounds wasted on cameras and their misguided 'speed kills' advertising, if it have been instead invested in improving drivers' awareness of hazards, ability to 'read' the road ahead and improving their tollerance of other drivers to stop them 'cutting up' others, jumping lights and driving too close.
I'm sure that these are the real causes of accidents and death on the roads.
Driving seems to have become far to competative with people willing to take stupid miscalculated risks just to gain one extra car-length.
Its dangerous and pathetic behaviour.
What they need is a camera that can measure the drivers IQ as they go past and give them a ticket if it is below 80!
Jeremy
I am a firm beleiver that it is incomptence and inattention that kills.
Just imagine how safe the roads would be now if this government had invested the millions of pounds wasted on cameras and their misguided 'speed kills' advertising, if it have been instead invested in improving drivers' awareness of hazards, ability to 'read' the road ahead and improving their tollerance of other drivers to stop them 'cutting up' others, jumping lights and driving too close.
I'm sure that these are the real causes of accidents and death on the roads.
Driving seems to have become far to competative with people willing to take stupid miscalculated risks just to gain one extra car-length.
Its dangerous and pathetic behaviour.
What they need is a camera that can measure the drivers IQ as they go past and give them a ticket if it is below 80!
Jeremy
Mr Whippy said:
Speeding doesn't cause accidents.
Innapropriate speed probably still causes lots of accidents though, below the speed "limit"
Ie, thrashing it along, speeding, say 90mph, get to a corner, go round it at 40mph, 20mph under the national limit say, and slide off the road. The corner is good for 35mph, but not 40mph.
You were not technically speeding, but you were going too fast for the conditions.
Still, the article proves that technical "speeding" isn't dangerous, it's inappropriate speed that is the problem, and this is not black and white, it varies every second as cars move, weather changes etc.
Camera's can't judge what is appropriate speed, so really the data shows that monitoring the "limit" is not effective, monitoring appropriateness of speed would be infinitely more effective. Traffic Officers in cars can judge appropriate speed very well, and they can also see lots of other dangerous activities while they are at it!
Wow, could TrafPol really solve alot of issues on the road
Dave
They would, hopefully, reduce number of stolen, unlicenced, unregistered cars on the road. RTP
They will still spout their lies, no matter what the truth though - they have a multi million poun industry to protect.
It made me angry looking at the back of a S172 request of friend of mine who was caught speeding in Nottingham, it had loads of made up things about safety and speeding, the first one being 'Excessive speed is the most major cause of accidents'.
It made me angry looking at the back of a S172 request of friend of mine who was caught speeding in Nottingham, it had loads of made up things about safety and speeding, the first one being 'Excessive speed is the most major cause of accidents'.
trax said:
They will still spout their lies, no matter what the truth though - they have a multi million poun industry to protect.
And that's now what it's about - protecting the existence of these quangos!!! All the while blatently LYING to the population about their true goals, AND increasing the danger on the roads - if this was a corporation the CPS would be collecting evidence towards corporate manslaughter through neglect!
The sooner this sorry sack of sh!t that currently run the country are kicked out, the better!!
havoc said:
They will still spout their lies, no matter what the truth though - they have a multi million poun industry to protect.
And that's now what it's about - protecting the existence of these quangos!!! All the while blatently LYING to the population about their true goals, AND increasing the danger on the roads - if this was a corporation the CPS would be collecting evidence towards corporate manslaughter through neglect!
The sooner this sorry sack of sh!t that currently run the country are kicked out, the better!!
Why do you think they make it hard to get their stats? because it would prove they are culpable?
havoc said:
They will still spout their lies, no matter what the truth though - they have a multi million poun industry to protect.
And that's now what it's about - protecting the existence of these quangos!!! All the while blatently LYING to the population about their true goals, AND increasing the danger on the roads - if this was a corporation the CPS would be collecting evidence towards corporate manslaughter through neglect!
The sooner this sorry sack of sh!t that currently run the country are kicked out, the better!!
I totally agree with you Havoc!!!!!!!!!
Ok I can't stand it any more. why are we so anti speed cameras. I speed at every opportunity and I live in London and never got a ticket, but I read so much about speeding cameras you would think they were some kind of big brother thing.
All you need to do is don't speed down roads you don't know well, and keep an eye open for these great big yellow things by the side of the road. If that's too difficult, they even draw all these white lines in the road.
I do object to covert cameras and devices, and don’t really like mobile police operated traps unless they are well advertised, but normal speed traps are fine.
Regarding the revenues, the government could at least double the revenues if they did away with the points on your licence aspect. I would take my chances if it wasn’t for the points and contribute rather frequently to such a system. So if it was purely business this is what they would do. So there must be some other reason for the cameras whether we like them or not.
Finally of all the taxes I have to pay now days, this is my favourite. I would prefer the government to collect all it’s revenues from speeding fines, at least it’s fairly easy to avoid and it is sort of environmentally friendly, so let’s moan about something else.
Yup, the way the scameraships/pratnerships are run, and protected from above, really does make me feel sick.
This is just as bad as David Blunkett's recent handy work. They are all corrupt dodgy liars who have no place acting as the servants of us. I have no idea who they think they are!
This government discusts me really, lies lies and more lies, somehow on our behalf!
Dave
This is just as bad as David Blunkett's recent handy work. They are all corrupt dodgy liars who have no place acting as the servants of us. I have no idea who they think they are!
This government discusts me really, lies lies and more lies, somehow on our behalf!
Dave
clomas,
In London, afaik, there aren't many mobiles. Out in the provinces they're investing almost solely in mobile sites now - hand-helds and vans. These things are impossible to avoid - they're facing you and pretty much as soon as you can see them they've lased you (despite the "guidelines" saying they must/should form prior opinion of speed).
Further, more and more of them are on open roads, not in built-up areas, and often well-away from any accident blackspots (one is on a bridge over a 3-lane d-carriageway FFS!!!). So they're not actually helping at all, and all the resource tied up in these quangos is taking away from trafpol...hence making the roads actually more dangerous.
I for one would be quite happy to have static sites, and even the odd mobile, AT (not within 3 miles as currently is) black-spots and all-over urban areas like chavs on street-corners. I would also far rather they were run by the police.
But that's far from the case at the moment. And I do have a clean license, although I'm in increasing fear of it, and increasing fear of the arrogant, aggressive and incompetent drivers who are blythely driving unchallenged due to no trafpol!
Sorry...rant over!
In London, afaik, there aren't many mobiles. Out in the provinces they're investing almost solely in mobile sites now - hand-helds and vans. These things are impossible to avoid - they're facing you and pretty much as soon as you can see them they've lased you (despite the "guidelines" saying they must/should form prior opinion of speed).
Further, more and more of them are on open roads, not in built-up areas, and often well-away from any accident blackspots (one is on a bridge over a 3-lane d-carriageway FFS!!!). So they're not actually helping at all, and all the resource tied up in these quangos is taking away from trafpol...hence making the roads actually more dangerous.
I for one would be quite happy to have static sites, and even the odd mobile, AT (not within 3 miles as currently is) black-spots and all-over urban areas like chavs on street-corners. I would also far rather they were run by the police.
But that's far from the case at the moment. And I do have a clean license, although I'm in increasing fear of it, and increasing fear of the arrogant, aggressive and incompetent drivers who are blythely driving unchallenged due to no trafpol!
Sorry...rant over!
I think the debate over whether speed cameras have a positive or negative affect on road safety is one between "the establishment" and us. Don't kid yourself that with Labour out things would automatically be any different. After all, who introduced them to the UK in the first place? (clue:1993)
mjdriver said:
Clomas,
You obviously don't rely on your driving license for your job?
I can't think of anything else that is more unfair...revenue raised via speed camera fines...
As the man said lets get rid of this sh!t labour government once and for all. Liars all of em !
Unfortunately the sh!t Tory government planned and introduced cameras so you'd have to make sure they don't get in either...
Which government is in power is irrelevant (scameras sprang up under a Conservative government, did they not?).
It seems like a greed-and-ignorance issue, and the biggest political parties have these qualities in abundance. It’s only as groups like SafeSpeed and ABD continue to expose the flaws in the ‘speed kills’ philosophy (and bring this evidence to a much broader audience, not just us petrolheads who are in the motoring minority) that a government would choose to commit to killing off this revenue stream and earnestly/honestly try to deal with the road safety issue.
It seems like a greed-and-ignorance issue, and the biggest political parties have these qualities in abundance. It’s only as groups like SafeSpeed and ABD continue to expose the flaws in the ‘speed kills’ philosophy (and bring this evidence to a much broader audience, not just us petrolheads who are in the motoring minority) that a government would choose to commit to killing off this revenue stream and earnestly/honestly try to deal with the road safety issue.
Jeremy said :-
"What they need is a camera that can measure the drivers IQ as they go past and give them a ticket if it is below 80!"
Why do we not have an IQ test as part of the driving test ??.
In what other situation can you see cretinous morons given the freedom of operating a potential lethal and ( usually ) very expensive piece of machinery, in close proximity to others ??.
If you think about it, we must be mad !!!!.
vbr CJ.
Hi all. I understand everything you are saying and am as angry about the state of scameras and the poor driving standards in this country.
But let me ask each and every reader of this post: Are you actually doing anyhting about it? Are you active members of these organisations (Safe Speed) et al?
I know it's only my opinion, but we are like sheep, just doing the dog's bidding. It's like the fuel prices - we all moaned about the price, but did nothing about it.
We must all stand together. We are enough individuals to make a difference. Not here on a "gassing station"... Out there in the real world.
But let me ask each and every reader of this post: Are you actually doing anyhting about it? Are you active members of these organisations (Safe Speed) et al?
I know it's only my opinion, but we are like sheep, just doing the dog's bidding. It's like the fuel prices - we all moaned about the price, but did nothing about it.
We must all stand together. We are enough individuals to make a difference. Not here on a "gassing station"... Out there in the real world.
Pridmorej said "What they need is a camera that can measure the drivers IQ as they go past and give them a ticket if it is below 80! "
(clicking on quote is not working at the moment)
Now that would generate a lot of revenue. Driving south of Aberdeen today approaching contraflow on dual carriage way, speed drops from 70 to 50, just as the car in front is nearly at the coned off section of 2nd lane, Peugot flies past at god knows what speed, and cuts in just in time............, and I mean with little space to spare at all, what does he gain apart from being behing a 2 mile tale back, less 2 cars, what are these peoples IQ's I wonder?
(clicking on quote is not working at the moment)
Now that would generate a lot of revenue. Driving south of Aberdeen today approaching contraflow on dual carriage way, speed drops from 70 to 50, just as the car in front is nearly at the coned off section of 2nd lane, Peugot flies past at god knows what speed, and cuts in just in time............, and I mean with little space to spare at all, what does he gain apart from being behing a 2 mile tale back, less 2 cars, what are these peoples IQ's I wonder?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff