Proportion of accidents caused by speeding?
Discussion
Does anyone have any reasonably reliable and up to date figures for the proportion of accidents caused by speeding? I've found some older articles such as these:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1974.asp
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061808/S...
but struggling with anything up to date.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1974.asp
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061808/S...
but struggling with anything up to date.
Look here
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-set...
2017 data won't be available until June 2019.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-set...
2017 data won't be available until June 2019.
Walter E. Kurtz said:
Would you define 'speeding' as 'exceeding the posted speed limit', or 'excessive speed appropriate to the conditions'?
I think we're all agreed that reckless speeding is something that someone else does.We're all advanced driver's here on PH, and can flout the speeding laws safely and at our own discretion.
A bit dated but good background information - TRL 323 - https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/TRL323.pdf
TheGreatSoprendo said:
The former, ideally.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/743095/ras50001.odsThis has both - accidents where at least one vehicle was exceeding the speed limit in 2017 5% Accidents where travelling to fast for the conditions 6%
vonhosen said:
Look here
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-set...
2017 data won't be available until June 2019.
Thanks.https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-set...
2017 data won't be available until June 2019.
For anyone interested, from the 2017 data, I make it 5.2% of all accidents attributable to exceeding the speed limit and 6.4% attributable travelling too fast for the conditions.
Always interesting to repeat that cross referencing with this shows ..
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
vehicles which are exceeding the speed limit are far less likely to be involved in accidents.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
vehicles which are exceeding the speed limit are far less likely to be involved in accidents.
TheGreatSoprendo said:
For anyone interested, from the 2017 data, I make it 5.2% of all accidents attributable to exceeding the speed limit and 6.4% attributable travelling too fast for the conditions.
None the wiser. Is the 5.2% a subset of the 6.4% ?Or are they separate categories that do not overlap? That is is the 6.4% below the posted limit, but unsafe for the conditions - which could be; a bend, ice, wet etc.
Pica-Pica said:
None the wiser. Is the 5.2% a subset of the 6.4% ?
Or are they separate categories that do not overlap? That is is the 6.4% below the posted limit, but unsafe for the conditions - which could be; a bend, ice, wet etc.
It's 2 separate pieces of data. They can record one both or neither, So it's possible to be going too fast for the conditions and not exceed the speed limit, exceed the speed limit but not go too fast for the conditions, neither or both. It make sense if you see the brake down by injury and severity. Or are they separate categories that do not overlap? That is is the 6.4% below the posted limit, but unsafe for the conditions - which could be; a bend, ice, wet etc.
scarble said:
Yes that's what I'm wondering.
Also a breakdown by severity is perhaps more relevant?
Let's say hypothetically 90% of addicdents occur in supermarket carparks, that doesn't mean that supermarket carparks are dangerous necessarily.
Broken down by severity it's 14% speeding 9% too fast for Fatal accidents, 7% speeding and 7% travelling too fast for serious injuries, 5% speeding 6% travelling too fast for minor injuries and overall. It makes sense as faster speed = greater severity wheras too fast = causation therefore more likely. Also a breakdown by severity is perhaps more relevant?
Let's say hypothetically 90% of addicdents occur in supermarket carparks, that doesn't mean that supermarket carparks are dangerous necessarily.
It can be difficult to determine any trends from statistics.
I'd say you're much more likely to hit another car at >5mph in a crowded car park, which will cause an a non speed related accident but one which is not likely to be very serious in terms of damage or injuries.
On the other hand if you habitually drive at 120mph on empty dual carriageways you are fairly unlikely to have an accident, but any accident you do have is likely to be serious to say the least.
The problem is that statistics tend to get tweaked and manipulated to suit various agendas.
I'd say you're much more likely to hit another car at >5mph in a crowded car park, which will cause an a non speed related accident but one which is not likely to be very serious in terms of damage or injuries.
On the other hand if you habitually drive at 120mph on empty dual carriageways you are fairly unlikely to have an accident, but any accident you do have is likely to be serious to say the least.
The problem is that statistics tend to get tweaked and manipulated to suit various agendas.
warch said:
It can be difficult to determine any trends from statistics.
I'd say you're much more likely to hit another car at >5mph in a crowded car park, which will cause an a non speed related accident but one which is not likely to be very serious in terms of damage or injuries.
On the other hand if you habitually drive at 120mph on empty dual carriageways you are fairly unlikely to have an accident, but any accident you do have is likely to be serious to say the least.
The problem is that statistics tend to get tweaked and manipulated to suit various agendas.
There is no problem with statistics if you understand the source, the methodology of how they were collected and always understand the context within which you are using them. Of course pulling a number from a Daily Mail article on immigration is going to be treated with caution but pulling numbers from a census you can be less cautious around. I'd say you're much more likely to hit another car at >5mph in a crowded car park, which will cause an a non speed related accident but one which is not likely to be very serious in terms of damage or injuries.
On the other hand if you habitually drive at 120mph on empty dual carriageways you are fairly unlikely to have an accident, but any accident you do have is likely to be serious to say the least.
The problem is that statistics tend to get tweaked and manipulated to suit various agendas.
In terms of the question in hand, the caveats I would throw in is that many accidents are unreported, many accidents could be reported with incorrect speeds associated with them etc. I would imagine most 'accidents' are low speed bumps and you could argue there are so few 'speeding' accidents is because a lot of people do not speed...
Edited by coldel on Friday 11th January 11:25
What is clear is that significantly improved road safety, or indeed any improvement, will not be achieved by the current concentration on 'driving by numbers'.
Clearly driving speeds need to be monitored and action taken against prolific offenders, but it does seem that the only real road-safety agenda is on preventing the breaking of posted limits and the creeping reduction in those limits.
A good example of this is the growth of the 'Speed Indicator Display Signs'. On a country road journey of 12 miles, I passed three of them yesterday. They are funded by the County Councils at a cost of £5000 each. That's right, our allegedly cash-strapped councils are spending £5000 plus fitting costs for each one. Apparently they don't record vehicle details, but they log the number and speed of each vehicle passing in excess of the limit. I asked a good friend of mine, who is a County Councillor, if the data would be used to analyse the speeds and the accident rate and adjust the limit upwards if it were to be found that there were no accidents during that time and mean speed is thus safe and higher than existing. He said that wouldn't happen, but that police enforcement by speed cameras would result if a large number of speeding vehicles was apparent. 'Nice little earner then'.
Clearly driving speeds need to be monitored and action taken against prolific offenders, but it does seem that the only real road-safety agenda is on preventing the breaking of posted limits and the creeping reduction in those limits.
A good example of this is the growth of the 'Speed Indicator Display Signs'. On a country road journey of 12 miles, I passed three of them yesterday. They are funded by the County Councils at a cost of £5000 each. That's right, our allegedly cash-strapped councils are spending £5000 plus fitting costs for each one. Apparently they don't record vehicle details, but they log the number and speed of each vehicle passing in excess of the limit. I asked a good friend of mine, who is a County Councillor, if the data would be used to analyse the speeds and the accident rate and adjust the limit upwards if it were to be found that there were no accidents during that time and mean speed is thus safe and higher than existing. He said that wouldn't happen, but that police enforcement by speed cameras would result if a large number of speeding vehicles was apparent. 'Nice little earner then'.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff