Speeding causes 3x as many deaths as previously thought...

[vonhosen]

jm doc said:

Since speed limits have been massively reduced everywhere on virtually every non-motorway road, it stands to reason that the number of accidents where people are exceeding the speed limit will increase.

The stats don't reflect your assertion though do they?

The article talks about the potential change nationwide in which speed is recorded as a contributory factor (following trial results) due to a change in when it is recorded within the investigative process.
Do you not think it is better to record what were contributory factors at the end of the investigative process rather than much earlier at the scene?

[jm doc]

vonhosen said:

jm doc said:

Since speed limits have been massively reduced everywhere on virtually every non-motorway road, it stands to reason that the number of accidents where people are exceeding the speed limit will increase.

The stats don't reflect your assertion though do they?

The article talks about the potential change nationwide in which speed is recorded as a contributory factor (following trial results) due to a change in when it is recorded within the investigative process.
Do you not think it is better to record what were contributory factors at the end of the investigative process rather than much earlier at the scene?

I think it's a load of bks. Someone set out to find a way of making speed appear to be a more significant factor in accidents. It's quite easy, happens in other areas of life, eg drug trials (as in new medicines, not court cases involving illegal substances....).

[vonhosen]

jm doc said:

vonhosen said:

jm doc said:

Since speed limits have been massively reduced everywhere on virtually every non-motorway road, it stands to reason that the number of accidents where people are exceeding the speed limit will increase.

The stats don't reflect your assertion though do they?

The article talks about the potential change nationwide in which speed is recorded as a contributory factor (following trial results) due to a change in when it is recorded within the investigative process.
Do you not think it is better to record what were contributory factors at the end of the investigative process rather than much earlier at the scene?

I think it's a load of bks. Someone set out to find a way of making speed appear to be a more significant factor in accidents. It's quite easy, happens in other areas of life, eg drug trials (as in new medicines, not court cases involving illegal substances....).

Which do you consider, given the choice between recording contributory factors at the end of the investigative process or at a very early stage in it, is likely to give more accurate results & why?

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Which do you consider, given the choice between recording contributory factors at the end of the investigative process or at a very early stage in it, is likely to give more accurate results & why?

You refer to “accurate results”, but the identification of contributory factors is a subjective assessment and the weighting of various contributory factors is a subjective assessment.

It may not be entirely subjective, in that some judgments will be obviously wrong, but there is nonetheless in any accident a range of “right” answers: a band of assessments within which any one can be defended as not wrong.

So what do the “results” of this process really amount to, and how are they “accurate”? A “more considered assessment” might be a better description of the outcome of this process.

And then: what is actually being assessed? The contribution of speed to the severity of the outcome, or the contribution of speed as a cause of the accident? They are completely different things.

[jm doc]

vonhosen said:

jm doc said:

vonhosen said:

jm doc said:

Since speed limits have been massively reduced everywhere on virtually every non-motorway road, it stands to reason that the number of accidents where people are exceeding the speed limit will increase.

The stats don't reflect your assertion though do they?

The article talks about the potential change nationwide in which speed is recorded as a contributory factor (following trial results) due to a change in when it is recorded within the investigative process.
Do you not think it is better to record what were contributory factors at the end of the investigative process rather than much earlier at the scene?

I think it's a load of bks. Someone set out to find a way of making speed appear to be a more significant factor in accidents. It's quite easy, happens in other areas of life, eg drug trials (as in new medicines, not court cases involving illegal substances....).

Which do you consider, given the choice between recording contributory factors at the end of the investigative process or at a very early stage in it, is likely to give more accurate results & why?

It would depend on whether I wanted to present the information in a particular way.

[Dingu]

jm doc said:

It would depend on whether I wanted to present the information in a particular way.

Lol, tying yourself in knots.

This is an interesting case of how information is presented affecting perception however.
If the OP had chosen a more sensible (and accurate) way to make their post this would have all gone differently.

[vonhosen]

jm doc said:

vonhosen said:

jm doc said:

vonhosen said:

jm doc said:

Since speed limits have been massively reduced everywhere on virtually every non-motorway road, it stands to reason that the number of accidents where people are exceeding the speed limit will increase.

The stats don't reflect your assertion though do they?

The article talks about the potential change nationwide in which speed is recorded as a contributory factor (following trial results) due to a change in when it is recorded within the investigative process.
Do you not think it is better to record what were contributory factors at the end of the investigative process rather than much earlier at the scene?

I think it's a load of bks. Someone set out to find a way of making speed appear to be a more significant factor in accidents. It's quite easy, happens in other areas of life, eg drug trials (as in new medicines, not court cases involving illegal substances....).

Which do you consider, given the choice between recording contributory factors at the end of the investigative process or at a very early stage in it, is likely to give more accurate results & why?

It would depend on whether I wanted to present the information in a particular way.

Well, accurately is presenting it as close to the reality/truth as possible.
So which of the two choices given do you consider is most likely to result in that & why?

Do you object to the proposed change & if so why?

[jm doc]

Dingu said:

jm doc said:

It would depend on whether I wanted to present the information in a particular way.

Lol, tying yourself in knots.

This is an interesting case of how information is presented affecting perception however.
If the OP had chosen a more sensible (and accurate) way to make their post this would have all gone differently.

Simply making an assertion does not make it correct. Currently I don't feel in anyway restrained by knots. Would they have publicised this "new" way of analysing their data if it had shown fewer accidents were caused by speeding?

[Previous]

Considering factors at the end makes sense, although I do worry it's a bit lazy, as inappropriate speed can always be listed a contributory factor.

If it was appropriate, they wouldn't have crashed!

[motco]

Dingu said:

motco said:

There's a big difference between the thread title "Speeding causes..." and your "...as a contributory factor." I have considerable difficulty arguing against your statement whilst the title's claim is simplistic in the extreme.

The issue with blindly believing the click bait title Ops often seem to like using.

The Times headline uses the same wording "...causes..."

[vonhosen]

Previous said:

Considering factors at the end makes sense, although I do worry it's a bit lazy, as inappropriate speed can always be listed a contributory factor.

If it was appropriate, they wouldn't have crashed!

It's not always used though.

The presence of inappropriate speed doesn't always result in a collision & a collision doesn't always have inappropriate speed as a contributory factor in it happening.
I believe the worst that they found in the article was 64% for either exceeding the limit or excessive speed for the circumstances as a contributory factor & that was in fatality collisions only. It will be lower than that in less serious collision categories.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 00:42

[Dingu]

motco said:

Dingu said:

motco said:

There's a big difference between the thread title "Speeding causes..." and your "...as a contributory factor." I have considerable difficulty arguing against your statement whilst the title's claim is simplistic in the extreme.

The issue with blindly believing the click bait title Ops often seem to like using.

The Times headline uses the same wording "...causes..."

U.K. newspapers are of course famed for their excellent journalistic standards.

[vonhosen]

BlackWidow13 said:

vonhosen said:

Which do you consider, given the choice between recording contributory factors at the end of the investigative process or at a very early stage in it, is likely to give more accurate results & why?

You refer to “accurate results”, but the identification of contributory factors is a subjective assessment and the weighting of various contributory factors is a subjective assessment.

It may not be entirely subjective, in that some judgments will be obviously wrong, but there is nonetheless in any accident a range of “right” answers: a band of assessments within which any one can be defended as not wrong.

So what do the “results” of this process really amount to, and how are they “accurate”? A “more considered assessment” might be a better description of the outcome of this process.

And then: what is actually being assessed? The contribution of speed to the severity of the outcome, or the contribution of speed as a cause of the accident? They are completely different things.

i asked which will give 'more' accurate results (closer to the reality or truth of the matter)
It declared at the end of the investigative process or at an early stage in it?

It's a contributory factor in the accident happening.

You have it's presence in different severities of accidents.

You have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for conditions is a contributory factor in fatality accidents that happened.
You have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for the conditions is a contributory factor in serious injury accidents that happened.
You have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for the conditions is a contributory factor in slight injury accidents that happened.
You then have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for the conditions is a contributory factor across all the above severities combined.

Historically the more serious the accident class, the greater the percentage that it tends to be within that class as a contributory factor.

[donkmeister]

Ardennes92 said:

motco said:

Of course, but you more than most know that there's almost never a single cause. A cascade of events might result from one act of incompetence and excessive speed may be an element of that incompetence.

I was almost wiped out by an Audi R8 travelling on the wrong side of two islands on a single carriageway 'A' road in a 40mph section between 50mph sections. The driver was obviously speeding but it was impatience and disregard for the rule of 'keep left' more than the speed that were the major factors. The collision, had it occurred, would have been catastrophic entirely because of the energy of a couple of tonnes travelling at a closing speed of >100mph with another two tonne hunk of metal. Luckily I was able to bring my speed down from 40 to 30 and avert the collision. I have footage complete with GPS data on disc but the police were unable to act because two weeks had passed before my video reached the correct desk.

That sounds like very poor road layout/design if it is easier to take two islands at speed on the wrong side rather than keep left

I know a few roads where "keep left" islands have been placed along the stretches that were previously the safest places to do an overtake. There is usually a reason why it's been done, for instance one near me was due to a gravel pit opening up, therefore lorries needed easy access to a main road as well as a central refuge for gravel lorries turning right into the site. Makes sense to put their entrance on a nice long straight with clear views, but unfortunately, the approach taken resulted in safe overtaking opportunities being removed indefinitely even though the gravel pit is seemingly unused now.

If stuck behind a 40-everywhere bimbler, then the only way to overtake them there would be to go onto the wrong side of the keep left islands (indeed that's what I've seen the Police do there when they're in a hurry). What few overtaking opportunities remain on the rest of the road require a car with significantly more poke than most, plus a bit of luck that the overtaking zone lines up with a suitable gap in the oncoming traffic. Unfortunately it is a fact of life that frustrated people are more likely to do something stupid, so perhaps the key is to take the most frustrating drivers off the road?

[heebeegeetee]

gottans said:

That all makes sense but it still doesn't take account of the drivers ability so any determination of 'too fast for the conditions' is fatally flawed and meaningless or is the working assumption the lowest driving ability is assumed which makes a 'too fast for the conditions' conclusion inevitable and still meaningless. The end result is an over-estimation of the contribution speed has to the accident cause irrespective of when the conclusion reached.

Is driver ability taken into account during the RTA investigation?

Surely the only thing that can be said about driver ability that is is something which is 'greatly exaggerated' or ' greatly overestimated'?

.

[dundarach]

105.4 said:

That’s odd, because I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve traveled at 150mph+ and to the best of my knowledge, I haven’t died once.

This proves my point however.

If I'm a crap Qashqai driving urchin, whose kids are screaming and whose phone is busy being texted upon, AND I HIT YOU

We're both fked

Crack on I say, but understand that until they take ME off the road, your increased speed DOES increase your risk, unless you're exempt from the same physics I am when we're both barrelling through the air!

[768]

andyalan10 said:

Debaser said:

If they’re going to combine ‘motorists who broke the speed limit and those who drove too fast for the conditions’ under speeding, they might as well claim speeding causes 100% of deaths.

Oh I was so nearly in 100% agreement with you.

But what about those cases where someone in a parked car is hit by a falling tree, or the car rolls off a cliff because the brake is not correctly applied?

Yes 99.5% of road deaths are cased by excessive speed*

• This figure comes from research in which I wrote some numbers down until one looked about right.

They're both speed related examples, albeit one is of the tree. If the car was unable to reach rolling speed there would be no issue. Clearly we need speed limits for falling trees too. And if that doesn't stop enough falling tree accidents, lower the tree speed limit further until it does.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

i asked which will give 'more' accurate results (closer to the reality or truth of the matter)
It declared at the end of the investigative process or at an early stage in it?

It's a contributory factor in the accident happening.

You have it's presence in different severities of accidents.

You have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for conditions is a contributory factor in fatality accidents that happened.
You have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for the conditions is a contributory factor in serious injury accidents that happened.
You have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for the conditions is a contributory factor in slight injury accidents that happened.
You then have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for the conditions is a contributory factor across all the above severities combined.

Historically the more serious the accident class, the greater the percentage that it tends to be within that class as a contributory factor.

So the assessment is purely of the contribution that excessive speed had on the outcome of the accident, yes? Not on any contribution of excessive speed to the cause of the accident, yes?

[Pinkie15]

jm doc said:

I think it's a load of bks. Someone set out to find a way of making speed appear to be a more significant factor in accidents. It's quite easy, happens in other areas of life, eg drug trials (as in new medicines, not court cases involving illegal substances....).

How does this happen in drug trials ?

[NDNDNDND]

A quick google suggests that 0.97% of car crashes are fatal.

And this study shows that 'speed' (and not necessarily exceeding the posted speed limit) is a contributory factor in 64% of these crashes.

So, we're supposed to let a contributory factor in 0.62% of car crashes dictate road policing policy?

Wouldn't it be better to focus more effort on distracted driving, what with that being leading cause of crashes?