Thursday 24th June 2004

2003 Accident Results Out

Death toll on our roads increases across the board

---

The Department for Transport has just issued the figures for road accidents in 2003.

The key results are:

• The number of deaths rose by 2 per cent from 3,431 in 2002 to 3,508 in 2003.
• There were 774 pedestrian deaths, about the same level as 2002
• The number of motorbike deaths rose by 14% to 693.
• The number of deaths among car users in 2003 was 1,769, 1 per cent more than in the previous year.

Non fatal casualties are down however with the combined figure of killed and seriously injured being 37,215 people. That's 6 per cent fewer than in 2002. Child casualties fell by 8 per cent. The combined figure for children killed or seriously injured in 2003 was 4,100 (down 11 per cent on 2002).

The only mitigating factor in these results is that traffic levels were 1 per cent higher than in 2002 and consequently the overall casualty rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres was 5 per cent lower than in 2002.

The full report is not online currently.

Link: www.dft.gov.uk

[PetrolTed]

Those "100 lives" saved by speed cameras...?

[pmanson]

Why are their figures in kms not miles?

[forever_driving]

PetrolTed said:

Those "100 lives" saved by speed cameras...?

I can imagine that the partnership spin would be that "100 more people would have died if the cameras weren't there"

[JohnL]

pmanson said:

Why are their figures in kms not miles?

To make international comparisons easier? Doesn't really matter, still a shocking result.

[streaky]

JohnL said:

pmanson said: Why are their figures in kms not miles? To make international comparisons easier? Doesn't really matter, still a shocking result.

It DOES matter. Road distances in the UK are quoted in MILES. Is this part of the "tidying-up exercise" (aka the European Constitution) Bliar signed up to despite the country's expressed disquiet? - Streaky

[DustyC]

teds article said:

The only mitigating factor in these results is that traffic levels were 1 per cent higher than in 2002 and consequently the overall casualty rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres was 5 per cent lower than in 2002.

Thats the point that they will focus on.

Its probably the most important one too.

[JohnL]

These figures show a rise in deaths in relation to road use of around 1%. The fall in casulaties of 5% is a fall in the KSI figures rather than deaths.

This is the first year the deaths per billion veh-km has risen since 1969 - and only the 7th time since 1950.

The following years since 1950 have shown a rise in deaths relative to road use, compared to the year before:

1953
1955
1957
1960
1964
1969
2003

Whether or not this is an effect of cameras or not, this demeonstrates that the current approach to road safety is failing miserably.

[pmanson]

This announcement is not getting the same amount of time in the press as the "100 lives saved" announcement the other week!

I wonder why?

[PetrolTed]

Biggest death rate since 1997 too isn't it?

[Bonce]

I can't find the report on the dft site. Where do I look?

[Bonce]

Ah, found it: www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_029323.hcsp

Funny how they're not mentioning it in the news section like the "100 lives save a year" story.

Ted, have you considered sending this story to the media?

>> Edited by Bonce on Thursday 24th June 11:14

[UK952]

And how do they calculate road traffic levels - sounds like an easy way to fiddle the numbers to me.
Tony

[PetrolTed]

Bonce said:

Ted, have you considered sending this story to the media?

It's a DfT Press Release. All the media will have received it. It'll be interesting to see what coverage it gets generally.

[Bonce]

Interesting, yes. But what if it gets no coverage? Then it's a missed opportunity!

Why not get pro-active for our cause, you have no doubt that BRAKE et al would be shouting all about it if the figures were opposite...

[JohnL]

PetrolTed said:

Biggest death rate since 1997 too isn't it?

Yes.

Camera partnerships came in in 2000-2001 ...

[safespeed]

I've sent out a press release as follows:

PR 128: Bad Policy Increases Road Death

NEWS: For immediate release
===========================

Official Figures released today show that road deaths have risen by 2.25%. Safe Speed says this rise is caused by bad road safety policy.

The big question that must be answered is: "Why are road deaths rising while speed cameras are spreading like a virus."

It is no surprise to us that road deaths have risen - they are following a trend that we have been predicting for several years.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign comments: "We are told that speed cameras save lives, but the figures are hopelessly flawed. Speed camera effects are wide ranging and not limited to immediate and local effects on drivers speed. For example, speed cameras also affect drivers' safety priorities - and not for the better."

Paul explains: "It is very important to our road safety system that drivers slow down in areas of danger. I believe that all the indications point to speed cameras eroding this vital driver behaviour, and this is one of the most important factors that has lead to the rise
in road death. By contrast keeping to the speed limit is not a terribly important road safety behaviour. Our motorways are the safest roads in the World, yet on some quieter sections more than 90% of cars are exceeding the speed limit."

The rise in road death cannot be explained away as the result of an increase in traffic. Traffic has seen about a 1.75% increase, but we also have ongoing improvements in vehicle safety, road engineering safety and post accident medical care thought to be worth about a 7% reduction per annum when taken together.

In the pre-camera decade, from 1984 to 1993, we saw road death fall by 32% (from 5599 to 3814). In the speed camera decade from 1994 to 2003 we have seen road deaths fall by just 3.8% (from 3,650 to 3,508).

Paul comments: "The focus on speed limits is dangerously simplistic. It sends completely the wrong messages. We must give all road users complete and accurate messages about the causes of road accidents,
so that we can all guard against the right risks. Normal road users exceeding the speed limit is a real contributory factor in less than 2% of accidents."

<ends>



Notes for editors:
==================

We have prepared a spreadsheet with graphs showing the slow down and eventual reversal in the road death trends:

www.safespeed.org.uk/pr128.xls and "zipped"
www.safespeed.org.uk/pr128.zip

This PR may well be extended during the day and the latest version will be published at:

www.safespeed.org.uk/pr128.html

DfT press release
www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0071

These new figures further extend the anomaly affecting the serious accident statistics:

www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html

The Radio 4 "Today Programme" will report on the case for speed cameras on Friday 25th June 2004 between 7am and 9am.

[Bonce]

BBC have published: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3835747.stm

[JohnL]

I'm agreeign with BRAKE, noooooo .....
------------
Mary Williams, chief executive of Brake, blamed "woeful" under-funding by the government for more than 10 deaths a day on Britain's roads.

"There is far too little money spent on traffic policing, road safety TV advertising and engineering measures," she said.

"The horrendous loss of life should make road safety a political priority but instead it is always on the back burner with lots of rhetoric but far too little funding.

"If this number of people died in plane disasters there would be national outcry and urgent action taken."
------------------

[WildCat]

Interesting!

article said:

Only mitigating factor in results in that traffic levels were 1% higher than in 2002 and consequently overavll casualty rate per 100 million vehicle km was 5% lover than in 2002."

And when Paul Garvin's casualty rates for 2002 were higher than 2001 - less vehicle km -- what was SCPs and Dick's reaction?

Basically that Durham is wrong and they are right!


But when it applies to beloved scams.... how it changes. Same argument can be used!

Don't ya love politicians - especially the spinners!

[PetrolTed]

I saw that too John. Nice to see a measured and sensible reaction from BRAKE.