Ad: over 25% of fatalities caused by speeding

[puggit]

There's a radio advert at the moment (heard on 2-ten FM, radio station in Berks/North Hampshire) stating that over 25% of fatalities are caused by speeding.

Anyone able to confirm/refute this? I'd be happy to raise an objection to ASA if it can be refuted

[mg6b]

I expect what they mean is that speeding is the cause of the damage to human bodies that killed the subjects in the statistics. I don't think they mean that speeding caused the accidents that killed them. Speeding caused just the deaths.

>> Edited by mg6b on Monday 20th February 16:48

[BliarOut]

mailto: [e-mail] ?

[BliarOut]

mg6b said:

I expect what they mean is that speeding is the cause of the damage to human bodies that killed the subjects in the statistics. I don't think they mean that speeding caused the accidents that killed them. Speeding caused just the deaths. >> Edited by mg6b on Monday 20th February 16:48

Surely it was the sudden stopping that really ed them?

[Einion Yrth]

mg6b said:

Speeding caused just the deaths.

So, if I crash into a wall at 59.999999 mph I'll be fine, but if I crash into a wall at 60.00001 mph I'll die? Fascinating, who'd have thought it.

[mg6b]

Einion Yrth said:

mg6b said: Speeding caused just the deaths. So, if I crash into a wall at 59.999999 mph I'll be fine, but if I crash into a wall at 60.00001 mph I'll die? Fascinating, who'd have thought it.

If you crashed into a wall at either of those speeds I expect you could die. If you were on a motorcycle when you did, that would be a certainty.

If you crashed into a wall at 40mph or even 20mph you could die, especially if it then fell on you.

Most fatal collisions I have ever attended have been the reuslt of someone travelling fast. On many occasions they had been travelling faster than they should have been for the number on the post and the circumstances at the time.

I have been to fatal collisions when vehicles have been travelling slowly. This is normally when large vehicles are reversing and clobber pedestrians.

If you decelerate from more than 40mph very quickly, you stand to cause your body what is known as a deceleration injury. That can kill you as it tears the Aorta when the heart slams forwards in the chest cavity. Death usually occurs within a few seconds as the blood pressure drops rapidly when your blood supply is pumped into your body cavity.

You would be surprised by the number of people that are killed by that injury or a rupture of the liver in similar cirumstances.

[Mr Whippy]

Einion Yrth said:

mg6b said: Speeding caused just the deaths. So, if I crash into a wall at 59.999999 mph I'll be fine, but if I crash into a wall at 60.00001 mph I'll die? Fascinating, who'd have thought it.

Such an odd number to use though.

Like you say, the values are quite meaningless in a way. 59.999mph would not be covered, but 60.0001mph would be.

It's hard to grasp the meaning how speeding causes deaths. Surely at the point of mortal injury speeds are well below the legal limits, infact probably under 5mph.

Unless you die before impact while still over the speed limit?

Dave

[JoolzB]

mg6b said:

I expect what they mean is that speeding is the cause of the damage to human bodies that killed the subjects in the statistics. I don't think they mean that speeding caused the accidents that killed them. Speeding caused just the deaths. >> Edited by mg6b on Monday 20th February 16:48

It would probably be worth pointing that out to people tho you would have thought rather than misleading them into thinking it's just car related. It would probably be worth mentioning that the deceleration of falling off a high rise block of flats will probably do worse damage whilst they're at it?

[F348]

mg6b said:

I expect what they mean is that speeding is the cause of the damage to human bodies that killed the subjects in the statistics. I don't think they mean that speeding caused the accidents that killed them. Speeding caused just the deaths. >> Edited by mg6b on Monday 20th February 16:48

I think you are failing to differentiate between legal speed and illegal speed. Basic physics says that a higher speed at the time of the collision will likely result in more serious injuries, even death, and nobody here disputes that. However, provided the speed was less than the speed limit for the road then speed has nothing to do with it at all in the context of the accident.

Somebody should take this ad up with the ASA, we all know that the figure being quoted is incorrect, just 5-7% are caused by excessive speed (in excess of the speed limit).

[Einion Yrth]

mg6b said:

lots of stuff, none of which I have any argument with...

... but all of which demonstrates the total nonsense that is the suggestion that exceeding an arbitrary speed limit is a cause of death.

[robbie_toys]

puggit said:

There's a radio advert at the moment (heard on 2-ten FM, radio station in Berks/North Hampshire) stating that over 25% of fatalities are caused by speeding. Anyone able to confirm/refute this? I'd be happy to raise an objection to ASA if it can be refuted

Hmmmm....so even if their data is correct 75% of all road fatalities have nothing to do with speed...now if the government spent a proportianate effort to reduce these 75% that it does to eliminate the other 25%, we might actually believe they were serious about road safety & not just out to get as much cash off the motorist as possible.

[trackcar]

robbie_toys said:

puggit said: There's a radio advert at the moment (heard on 2-ten FM, radio station in Berks/North Hampshire) stating that over 25% of fatalities are caused by speeding. Anyone able to confirm/refute this? I'd be happy to raise an objection to ASA if it can be refuted Hmmmm....so even if their data is correct 75% of all road fatalities have nothing to do with speed...now if the government spent a proportianate effort to reduce these 75% that it does to eliminate the other 25%, we might actually believe they were serious about road safety & not just out to get as much cash off the motorist as possible.

But then the % caused by speeding would increase.
Maybe the govt *have* targetted the 75% and it used to be 99% in which case good on them .. somehow though I doubt this has happened ..

[Lambochick]

puggit said:

There's a radio advert at the moment (heard on 2-ten FM, radio station in Berks/North Hampshire) stating that over 25% of fatalities are caused by speeding.

So that means that 75% are caused by people who aren't speeding!! More power to your right foot.

[Lambochick]

Also, what's with that advert that says "Speed Kills"? Andy Green did over 750mph in Thrust 2, and it didn't kill him!!

>> Edited by Lambochick on Monday 20th February 22:44

[Boosted Ls1]

Lambochick said:

Also, what's with that advert that says "Speed Kills"? Andy Green did over 750mph in Thrust 2, and it didn't kill him!! >> Edited by Lambochick on Monday 20th February 22:44

Ah, but that's because he was watching out for the speed cameras and keeping an eye on his speedo! Drive slowly, form a queue, you know it makes sense, bollox! Blast past every dawdling numpty at every opportunity. Look at their beeming faces when you get past.

Boosted.

[safespeed]

puggit said:

There's a radio advert at the moment (heard on 2-ten FM, radio station in Berks/North Hampshire) stating that over 25% of fatalities are caused by speeding. Anyone able to confirm/refute this? I'd be happy to raise an objection to ASA if it can be refuted

The exact wording is important. Latest DfT data says that 28% of fatal crashes have 'excessive speed' as a contributory factor.

But 'excessive speed' includes inappropriate speed within the limit as well as 'speeding' (=exceeding a speed limit). In the wider 'injury crashes' data, around 70% of 'excessive speed' crashes do NOT involve exceeding a speed limit.

Within the 'excessive speed' fatalities that do involve exceeding a speed limit, we find some extraordinary reckless behaviours that are responsible for both the speed and the crash. For example, we have speeding drunks, speeding joyriders in stolen cars, nutters racing on the highway and so on. To say these crashes are 'caused by speeding' is clearly a step too far.

So in the original statement there are two significant problems:

* 'speeding' is not the same as the contibutory factor: 'excessive speed'
* very few (if any) crashes are 'caused' by speeding although sometimes 'speeding' may be a contributory factor.

[autismuk]

mg6b said:

Einion Yrth said: mg6b said: Speeding caused just the deaths. So, if I crash into a wall at 59.999999 mph I'll be fine, but if I crash into a wall at 60.00001 mph I'll die? Fascinating, who'd have thought it. If you crashed into a wall at either of those speeds I expect you could die. If you were on a motorcycle when you did, that would be a certainty. If you crashed into a wall at 40mph or even 20mph you could die, especially if it then fell on you. Most fatal collisions I have ever attended have been the reuslt of someone travelling fast. On many occasions they had been travelling faster than they should have been for the number on the post and the circumstances at the time. I have been to fatal collisions when vehicles have been travelling slowly. This is normally when large vehicles are reversing and clobber pedestrians. If you decelerate from more than 40mph very quickly, you stand to cause your body what is known as a deceleration injury. That can kill you as it tears the Aorta when the heart slams forwards in the chest cavity. Death usually occurs within a few seconds as the blood pressure drops rapidly when your blood supply is pumped into your body cavity. You would be surprised by the number of people that are killed by that injury or a rupture of the liver in similar cirumstances.

Whilst you are right, the Scamera lobby deliberately conflates "speeding" and "breaking the speed limit" which aren't the same thing at all.

It's about inappropriate speed for the conditions - which may be way under the limit in some circumstances. When trafpol did it they had some degree of common sense ; they weren't after people doing 80 on the motorway really, though blatantly ignoring trafpol would get you a talking to - they were after people driving like idiots.

[Peter Ward]

safespeed said:

puggit said: There's a radio advert at the moment (heard on 2-ten FM, radio station in Berks/North Hampshire) stating that over 25% of fatalities are caused by speeding. Anyone able to confirm/refute this? I'd be happy to raise an objection to ASA if it can be refuted The exact wording is important. Latest DfT data says that 28% of fatal crashes have 'excessive speed' as a contributory factor. But 'excessive speed' includes inappropriate speed within the limit as well as 'speeding' (=exceeding a speed limit). In the wider 'injury crashes' data, around 70% of 'excessive speed' crashes do NOT involve exceeding a speed limit. Within the 'excessive speed' fatalities that do involve exceeding a speed limit, we find some extraordinary reckless behaviours that are responsible for both the speed and the crash. For example, we have speeding drunks, speeding joyriders in stolen cars, nutters racing on the highway and so on. To say these crashes are 'caused by speeding' is clearly a step too far. So in the original statement there are two significant problems: * 'speeding' is not the same as the contibutory factor: 'excessive speed' * very few (if any) crashes are 'caused' by speeding although sometimes 'speeding' may be a contributory factor.

I would also say that "25% of fatalities" and "25% of fatal accidents" are also different. I know this is nit-picking, but so much of the stuff that comes from the gov't and the partnerships uses wording that says one thing but tries to get you to think another, so we have to be on our guard.

[puggit]

I'm fairly sure I'm correct in my wording, if not the exact phrase - the ad hasn't been repeated yet.

www.saferroads.org (the relevant scam group) has a list of ads on their website you can download and listen to, so I will find the relevent one when I have time - currently redecorating to get the house ready for new carpets on Friday!!