Robert Gifford in the Indie
Discussion
Bit late this, given that it was published on the 7th Sept. Only just seen it. Unlike Mr Gifford, I do this stuff in my "free" (hahaha) time...in the meantime I've got a business to run.
Robert Gifford: Why reducing your speed does matter
07 September 2004
Why do measures to reduce speed get some people so annoyed? I ask this because of Mark McArthur Christie's intemperate article about speed cameras in these pages on 24 August. His views are simple, neat and wrong. Speed does kill. If we could cut speeds, we could reduce the avoidable cumulative death toll that we tolerate on our roads.
Let's get some definitions straight from the outset. Speed can be excess (breaking the posted speed limit) and inappropriate (driving too fast for the conditions). Here's an example of the latter. To drive a car at 70mph on the motorway may be legal. Driving at that speed in thick fog, however, is suicidal or murderous.
I accept that speed cameras catch only people committing excess speed offences. Yet these people are more likely to be involved in a crash. Ashton and Mackay (1979) found that there was a clear link between speed and accident severity: the change from predominantly survivable to fatal injuries among pedestrians happens between 30mph and 35mph. Hobbs and Mills (1984) pointed to the higher risk of injury to belted car occupants as speed rises. Those inside and outside the car are more likely to die if you travel faster.
Straddling concluded from a sample of Scottish drivers that those caught speeding either by camera or police officer were twice as likely to be involved in a crash. Those who break the speed limit regularly are "crash magnets" and need to change their behaviour.
Work from the Transport Research Laboratory has shown the link between speed, crashes and injuries. If average speeds drop by 1mph, crashes fall by 5 per cent. More specifically, the reduction will vary according to road type and average traffic speed from about 6 per cent for urban roads with low traffic speeds to about 3 per cent for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads.
It has also shown that accident frequency on urban roads rises with the increasing proportion of drivers exceeding the limit and with increases in mean excess speed. So if we can reduce the number of people breaking the speed limit and the speeds at which they travel, we can reduce deaths and injuries.
That's where cameras come in. The recent independent report into the first three years of camera implementation showed that speeds had fallen at camera sites by an average of 7 per cent, that the number of people breaking the speed limit at fixed camera sites had dropped by 71 per cent and that there were more than 100 fewer people killed at camera sites. I can't really see why Mark complains: if there is a law in place, surely we should comply with it.
He has a point about road deaths having risen last year. Here, however, he chooses to make 2+2=5 rather than look at the data. The two groups in which deaths rose were car occupants and motorcyclists. Among car drivers, we appear to have a growing incidence of non-seatbelt wearing among fatal crash victims. Some drivers have forgotten that belting up is more likely to save your life if you're in a crash. We need to repeat that message.
Motorcyclists are a tougher proposition. Twenty-eight per cent of motorcyclist deaths between 1997 and 2002 were in single vehicle accidents; 14 per cent of deaths occurred while overtaking, twice the level among car occupants. And motorcycling is highly seasonal.
There remains a big challenge to reduce the level of risk of death on the roads to that tolerated on the railways. That reduction will require political leadership and courage. To suggest that reducing speed plays no part defies research and reality.
Robert Gifford is executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety
Robert Gifford: Why reducing your speed does matter
07 September 2004
Why do measures to reduce speed get some people so annoyed? I ask this because of Mark McArthur Christie's intemperate article about speed cameras in these pages on 24 August. His views are simple, neat and wrong. Speed does kill. If we could cut speeds, we could reduce the avoidable cumulative death toll that we tolerate on our roads.
Let's get some definitions straight from the outset. Speed can be excess (breaking the posted speed limit) and inappropriate (driving too fast for the conditions). Here's an example of the latter. To drive a car at 70mph on the motorway may be legal. Driving at that speed in thick fog, however, is suicidal or murderous.
I accept that speed cameras catch only people committing excess speed offences. Yet these people are more likely to be involved in a crash. Ashton and Mackay (1979) found that there was a clear link between speed and accident severity: the change from predominantly survivable to fatal injuries among pedestrians happens between 30mph and 35mph. Hobbs and Mills (1984) pointed to the higher risk of injury to belted car occupants as speed rises. Those inside and outside the car are more likely to die if you travel faster.
Straddling concluded from a sample of Scottish drivers that those caught speeding either by camera or police officer were twice as likely to be involved in a crash. Those who break the speed limit regularly are "crash magnets" and need to change their behaviour.
Work from the Transport Research Laboratory has shown the link between speed, crashes and injuries. If average speeds drop by 1mph, crashes fall by 5 per cent. More specifically, the reduction will vary according to road type and average traffic speed from about 6 per cent for urban roads with low traffic speeds to about 3 per cent for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads.
It has also shown that accident frequency on urban roads rises with the increasing proportion of drivers exceeding the limit and with increases in mean excess speed. So if we can reduce the number of people breaking the speed limit and the speeds at which they travel, we can reduce deaths and injuries.
That's where cameras come in. The recent independent report into the first three years of camera implementation showed that speeds had fallen at camera sites by an average of 7 per cent, that the number of people breaking the speed limit at fixed camera sites had dropped by 71 per cent and that there were more than 100 fewer people killed at camera sites. I can't really see why Mark complains: if there is a law in place, surely we should comply with it.
He has a point about road deaths having risen last year. Here, however, he chooses to make 2+2=5 rather than look at the data. The two groups in which deaths rose were car occupants and motorcyclists. Among car drivers, we appear to have a growing incidence of non-seatbelt wearing among fatal crash victims. Some drivers have forgotten that belting up is more likely to save your life if you're in a crash. We need to repeat that message.
Motorcyclists are a tougher proposition. Twenty-eight per cent of motorcyclist deaths between 1997 and 2002 were in single vehicle accidents; 14 per cent of deaths occurred while overtaking, twice the level among car occupants. And motorcycling is highly seasonal.
There remains a big challenge to reduce the level of risk of death on the roads to that tolerated on the railways. That reduction will require political leadership and courage. To suggest that reducing speed plays no part defies research and reality.
Robert Gifford is executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety
Gizzard Puke wrote said:
I accept that speed cameras catch only people committing excess speed offences. Yet these people are more likely to be involved in a crash.
And then tried to justify this by saying
said:
Ashton and Mackay (1979) found that there was a clear link between speed and accident severity: the change from predominantly survivable to fatal injuries among pedestrians happens between 30mph and 35mph. Hobbs and Mills (1984) pointed to the higher risk of injury to belted car occupants as speed rises. Those inside and outside the car are more likely to die if you travel faster.
Anyone spot the glaring disparity in the assertion and the evidence to back it up?
said:
Ashton and Mackay (1979) found that there was a clear link between speed and accident severity: the change from predominantly survivable to fatal injuries among pedestrians happens between 30mph and 35mph. Hobbs and Mills (1984) pointed to the higher risk of injury to belted car occupants as speed rises. Those inside and outside the car are more likely to die if you travel faster.
Talk about stating the obvious! Simple physics indicates that the faster your speed when you crash the more severe the injuries.
Those who speed are more likely to have accidents? A load of cobblers, I do not know anybody who does not speed at least once every journey, whether intentionally or accidentally. Therefore I submit that an alternate hypothesis is more valid - Those that do not concentrate, observe or drive to the prevaling conditions are more likely to have accidents. This makes a lot more sense to me.
Think Paul at Safespeed has the actual stats and graphs but isn't it the fastest 10% of drivers aren't that safe but the NEXT 10% are the safest? The first category has idiots and experts but speed alone won't tell them apart. The second group are GATSO fodder but they're the safest on the road. Gifford's view of the world is after all restricted, being so far up Tone's ass.
twice for speding in 16 years.
47 in a 30, 23:30, 1990, traffic car with radar.
empty road in a built up area but with 20 years of grass either side of road.
Fair enough.
50 in a 40, 19:00, 2002, Tallivan,
empty dual carriageway just before NSL sign.
money making racket.
3 accidents.
Been rear ended twice, both in traffic light queues.
Drove into a bollard turning out of a junction that the council hadn't maintained.
47 in a 30, 23:30, 1990, traffic car with radar.
empty road in a built up area but with 20 years of grass either side of road.
Fair enough.
50 in a 40, 19:00, 2002, Tallivan,
empty dual carriageway just before NSL sign.
money making racket.
3 accidents.
Been rear ended twice, both in traffic light queues.
Drove into a bollard turning out of a junction that the council hadn't maintained.
Check out what Robert Gifford SHOULD have learned about his "facts and figures" in the "Stone Report" stuff, available via:
www.safespeed.org.uk/stone.html (especially listen to the audio links on the linked BBC web site)
Professor Stone was able to dismiss most of the arguments that RG is STILL using.
www.safespeed.org.uk/stone.html (especially listen to the audio links on the linked BBC web site)
Professor Stone was able to dismiss most of the arguments that RG is STILL using.
turbobloke said:
Think Paul at Safespeed has the actual stats and graphs but isn't it the fastest 10% of drivers aren't that safe but the NEXT 10% are the safest? The first category has idiots and experts but speed alone won't tell them apart. The second group are GATSO fodder but they're the safest on the road. Gifford's view of the world is after all restricted, being so far up Tone's ass.
See these two pages:
www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html
and
www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html
The problem is that Mr Gifford still thinks that sticking to limits (and more of them) will make the roads safer.
Not only that, but he also seems to believe that punishment is almost all that matters - he's the same chap who said that there was no point in training bikers because they just killed themselves faster.
Not only that, but he also seems to believe that punishment is almost all that matters - he's the same chap who said that there was no point in training bikers because they just killed themselves faster.
medicineman said:
Perhaps we should have a quick PH survey.
No of times done for speeding?
Accidents caused. Amount of damage. Seriousness of injuries?
1 SP30 (a cynical one as well)
I will freely admit to making progress when the conditions allow.
11 years driving.
No accidents. Very very few near misses (I can recall 2 clearly because they scared the crap out of me) - neither would have been my fault but looking back I can see a few things I could have done to have prevented the near miss.
Nothing at all.
More likely to crash my arse. I routinely did 220kph every day down the autobahn for 9 months and I'm still alive.
(What's the betting I crash reversing out off my drive tomorrow)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff