Yet more "interesting" reading

[jewhoo]

I've just been trawling through some of the data on www.safespeedforlife.com

Some interesting statistics here, taken from Jan-Jun '04 collision data and '04 summer speed survey

Nafferton : Total collisions of any variety 0
Nafferton : 70/67/76/78 (speed limit/ave speed all vehicles/85% speed/% vehicles over speed limit)
Nafferton = regular scamera site

A1058, Cochrane Park (2 sites): Total collisions 0
A1058, Cochrane Park (2 sites): 60/53/62/61
A1058 = now truvelos + scam + subject of Adom's recent rant!

Killingworth lane: Total collisions 0
Killingworth lane: 30/41/47/98
Regular scam

Bridge Street, Seaton Burn: Total collisions 0
Bridge Street, Seaton Burn: 30/34/42/80
Regular Scam

Stalks Road Brunswick: Total collisions, 1 minor (child in car)
Stalks Road Brunswick: 30/35/40/86
Regular Scam

The point of this is that these sites have the highest percentage of vehicles travelling over the limit (78,61,98,80,86) yet there's only one minor collision between the lot of them.

As a counterpoint:

Church Bank Wallsend: Total collisions 6 minor, 2 serious, 1 adult pedestrian minor
Church Bank Wallsend: 40/35/40/16

Worst accident record, one of the lower amounts of speeders.

Speed kills? Don't make me laugh. Well I would, if it weren't so serious!

[Mr Whippy]

That is quite startling data.

Surely such safe roads should have the limit raised.

Mind, this might encourage a few to drive faster again, which could be a bad thing.


But hey, surely the limit is fine, it's not like it's set in stone and police won't use discretion is it?





Dave

[timtonal]

Trouble is I believe it's actually part of the policy to target roads where there's the highest number of drivers exceeding the speed limit regardless of accidents.

I can't decide whether the people who implement this are misguided, incompetent or corrupt!

[james_j]

timtonal said:

Trouble is I believe it's actually part of the policy to target roads where there's the highest number of drivers exceeding the speed limit regardless of accidents. I can't decide whether the people who implement this are misguided, incompetent or corrupt!

I think the answer is "corrupt". There is too much evidence to suggest that, as with clampers and traffic wardens, they will go to any lengths to increase revenue under the cloak of "doing it for the greater good".

[jewhoo]

Well the scameraship is allowed to spend 15% of its time at non-accident locations in order to "prevent them becoming blackspots". When 98% of motorists are breaking teh limit, this is purely revenue raising, especially as there have been zero accidents!