RE: Speed Kills - or does it?
Thursday 28th September 2006
The papers and TV are full of the headlines about casualties and road deaths being in dramatic decline (all of a sudden). However, the Department for Transport has waited until this morning to release data regarding the causes of crashes on our roads.
Speed kills - or does it?
33% of crashes due to speeding they used to claim...
Road safety organisation Safe Speed claims that their analysis of the figures shows that just four per cent of injury crashes in 2005 were caused by vehicles exceeding speed limits.
The official press release muddies the waters by not drawing a distinction between speed limits and exceeding safe speeds for the conditions:
"Exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for conditions were reported as a contributory factor in 15 per cent of all accidents. However, the factor became more significant with the severity of the accident; it was reported as contributory factor in 26 per cent of fatal accidents and these accidents accounted for 28 per cent of all fatalities (793 deaths)."
Safe Speed founder Paul Smith said: "Safe Speed has been pointing out for years that the concentration on speeding was a deadly mistake. First the DfT said one third of crashes were caused by speeding. Then 12 per cent. Now four per cent. Our entire road safety policy has been based on dodgy data. Department for Transport has been defending bad decisions and bad policy for years.
"Now it must stop. Speed cameras must be scrapped. Heads must roll. We must put skills and attitudes at the heart of the road safety agenda. The skills that matter are in concentration, observation, anticipation, risk recognition and risk management -- not car control or legal compliance."
Discussion
article said:
Exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for conditions ... contributory factor in 26 per cent of fatal accidents and these accidents accounted for 28 per cent of all fatalities (793 deaths).
Not sure I follow - 28 per cent of fatalities on the road are caused by fatal accidents?
Maybe this goes to show that for years, when this sort of subject came up in conversation, my argument would be that speed on its own doesn't kill. I'd usually get a mixed response from people, some would agree but others would look at me like I’ve grown two heads !!!. I think what the statistic hungry road safety officials are forgetting is there are far too many other factors involved in the incident of an accident.
Given that the authorities are doing nothing to improve road safety, it would be great to see insurance underwriters take up the initiative: I would happily accept lower premiums if they made me do driver training every 3 years. This benefits me, the insurance companies, who are only underwriting better trained drivers, all other road users around me and the statisticians and mandarins.
[quote=jack&mle]What is needed is training
For exemple, on motorways, the number of car which are in the middle lane doing 60mph and therefore creating a chicane.
Better training is needed and we all should go trough a refresher every 5 years
jack[/quote]
I haven't seen any reason for general refreshers but I think it may be good to run mandatory courses for traffic offences, perhaps as an alternative to points. Do the course within six months or take the points.
For exemple, on motorways, the number of car which are in the middle lane doing 60mph and therefore creating a chicane.
Better training is needed and we all should go trough a refresher every 5 years
jack[/quote]
I haven't seen any reason for general refreshers but I think it may be good to run mandatory courses for traffic offences, perhaps as an alternative to points. Do the course within six months or take the points.
herewego said:
I haven't seen any reason for general refreshers but I think it may be good to run mandatory courses for traffic offences, perhaps as an alternative to points. Do the course within six months or take the points.
But you don't get points for hogging the middle lane at 60mph?Get these people out of the way and hey presto the motorway runs more like it should.
Edited by esselte on Thursday 28th September 11:58
Edited by esselte on Thursday 28th September 12:00
I see the numbers suggest a 5% causality for "Learner/Inexperienced driver" across all 3 casualty severity categories.
So with the recent 'report' that concluded raising the driving age, et., etc. suggesting 1000 lives a year would be saved by such changes (actually about 800 KSI I seem to recall but re-translated by the media for popular consumption) it would seem that we have some sort of storm in an egg-cup on that one. No doubt times to distract from these numbers.
What that insurance company report may also have failed to consider fully (I don't know, haven't read it and have seen no mention in the media reports) is that raising the age for independant transport may, amongst other effects, encourage continued use of two wheeled transport which generally carries a greater risk for youngsters even on low powered machines.
The other interesting number, in that it is a slightly wider disparity than the figures normally produce, is that young males are 8 times more likely to be speeding when they have an accident than are young females.
Odd because the the normal ratio of involvement is about 3:1 male to female iirc.
Personally I have not noticed a lack of push-on motoring amongst young females so the discrepancy seems peculiar. So much for sex equality.
That said it does occur to me that there are certain evolutionary traits which mostly apply to younger males that might be considered bad for society but useful for attempting to subdue 'enemies' and similar actions.
If society adopts extended measures to subdue that sort of 'risk unconscious' behaviour on the one hand (and succeeds) does it leave itself exposed and defenceless in other areas due to ingrained behavioural changes?
So with the recent 'report' that concluded raising the driving age, et., etc. suggesting 1000 lives a year would be saved by such changes (actually about 800 KSI I seem to recall but re-translated by the media for popular consumption) it would seem that we have some sort of storm in an egg-cup on that one. No doubt times to distract from these numbers.
What that insurance company report may also have failed to consider fully (I don't know, haven't read it and have seen no mention in the media reports) is that raising the age for independant transport may, amongst other effects, encourage continued use of two wheeled transport which generally carries a greater risk for youngsters even on low powered machines.
The other interesting number, in that it is a slightly wider disparity than the figures normally produce, is that young males are 8 times more likely to be speeding when they have an accident than are young females.
Odd because the the normal ratio of involvement is about 3:1 male to female iirc.
Personally I have not noticed a lack of push-on motoring amongst young females so the discrepancy seems peculiar. So much for sex equality.
That said it does occur to me that there are certain evolutionary traits which mostly apply to younger males that might be considered bad for society but useful for attempting to subdue 'enemies' and similar actions.
If society adopts extended measures to subdue that sort of 'risk unconscious' behaviour on the one hand (and succeeds) does it leave itself exposed and defenceless in other areas due to ingrained behavioural changes?
esselte said:
herewego said:
[quote=jack&mle]What is needed is training
For exemple, on motorways, the number of car which are in the middle lane doing 60mph and therefore creating a chicane.
Better training is needed and we all should go trough a refresher every 5 years
jack
For exemple, on motorways, the number of car which are in the middle lane doing 60mph and therefore creating a chicane.
Better training is needed and we all should go trough a refresher every 5 years
jack
I haven't seen any reason for general refreshers but I think it may be good to run mandatory courses for traffic offences, perhaps as an alternative to points. Do the course within six months or take the points.
But you don't get points for hogging the middle lane at 60mph?Get these people out of the way and hey presto the motorway runs more like it should.[/quote]
Do you think that's an education thing? I mean do you think that people don't know that they should be in the leftmost lane? I've wondered if some of the motorway bridges could have signs to say "don't hog the middle lane" or somesuch. It's not good to generalise I know but from what I've seen if you keep pulling into the left lane then it can be difficult to get back into the middle when you catch the next lorry. People sometimes don't want to let you in. It can be much less stressful to just stay in the middle. Every situation is different of course.
Edited by herewego on Thursday 28th September 12:02
Edited by herewego on Thursday 28th September 12:15
Do you think that all speed cameras should be scrapped?
Don’t get me wrong - I think speed camera should be scrapped from normal open roads, duel carriage ways and motorways where there aren’t pedestrians around but how about in villages or towns where there are people crossing the road or children running about?
I know in my village which is supposed to be a 30mph zone we always get t
ts coming through the place doing twice the speed limit. It only takes a child to run out into the road (despite all that road safety stuff their taught at school) and the child would probably be dead - now surly this is a case where speed does cause accidents and kill people.
Don’t get me wrong - I think speed camera should be scrapped from normal open roads, duel carriage ways and motorways where there aren’t pedestrians around but how about in villages or towns where there are people crossing the road or children running about?
I know in my village which is supposed to be a 30mph zone we always get t
ts coming through the place doing twice the speed limit. It only takes a child to run out into the road (despite all that road safety stuff their taught at school) and the child would probably be dead - now surly this is a case where speed does cause accidents and kill people. herewego said:
esselte said:
herewego said:
[quote=jack&mle]What is needed is training
For exemple, on motorways, the number of car which are in the middle lane doing 60mph and therefore creating a chicane.
Better training is needed and we all should go trough a refresher every 5 years
jack
For exemple, on motorways, the number of car which are in the middle lane doing 60mph and therefore creating a chicane.
Better training is needed and we all should go trough a refresher every 5 years
jack
I haven't seen any reason for general refreshers but I think it may be good to run mandatory courses for traffic offences, perhaps as an alternative to points. Do the course within six months or take the points.
But you don't get points for hogging the middle lane at 60mph?Get these people out of the way and hey presto the motorway runs more like it should.
Do think that's an education thing? I mean do you think that people don't know that they should be in the leftmost lane? I've wondered if some of the motorway bridges could have signs to say "don't hog the middle lane" or somesuch. It's not good to generalise I know but from what I've seen if you keep pulling into the left lane then it can be difficult to get back into the middle when you catch the next lorry. People sometimes don't want to let you in. It can be much less stressful to just stay in the middle. Every situation is different of course.
Edited by herewego on Thursday 28th September 12:02
[/quote] It's difficult to get back in 'cos of all the middle lane hoggers
If everyone used the lanes as they should then it would ease matters a lot.Do you think we should allow "undertaking" as in the States?benadams said:
Do you think that all speed cameras should be scrapped?
Don’t get me wrong - I think speed camera should be scrapped from normal open roads, duel carriage ways and motorways where there aren’t pedestrians around but how about in villages or towns where there are people crossing the road or children running about?
I know in my village which is supposed to be a 30mph zone we always get tts coming through the place doing twice the speed limit. It only takes a child to run out into the road (despite all that road safety stuff their taught at school) and the child would probably be dead - now surly this is a case where speed does cause accidents and kill people.
Don’t get me wrong - I think speed camera should be scrapped from normal open roads, duel carriage ways and motorways where there aren’t pedestrians around but how about in villages or towns where there are people crossing the road or children running about?
I know in my village which is supposed to be a 30mph zone we always get t
ts coming through the place doing twice the speed limit. It only takes a child to run out into the road (despite all that road safety stuff their taught at school) and the child would probably be dead - now surly this is a case where speed does cause accidents and kill people. Even if they don't kill people, it's still pretty awful to have people driving at that sort of speed past your house, even worse for people on the pavement. However every such road cannot have a camera along it's length and we don't want the police chasing people along there either even if they could.
esselte said:
herewego said:
esselte said:
herewego said:
[quote=jack&mle]What is needed is training
For exemple, on motorways, the number of car which are in the middle lane doing 60mph and therefore creating a chicane.
Better training is needed and we all should go trough a refresher every 5 years
jack
For exemple, on motorways, the number of car which are in the middle lane doing 60mph and therefore creating a chicane.
Better training is needed and we all should go trough a refresher every 5 years
jack
I haven't seen any reason for general refreshers but I think it may be good to run mandatory courses for traffic offences, perhaps as an alternative to points. Do the course within six months or take the points.
But you don't get points for hogging the middle lane at 60mph?Get these people out of the way and hey presto the motorway runs more like it should.
Do think that's an education thing? I mean do you think that people don't know that they should be in the leftmost lane? I've wondered if some of the motorway bridges could have signs to say "don't hog the middle lane" or somesuch. It's not good to generalise I know but from what I've seen if you keep pulling into the left lane then it can be difficult to get back into the middle when you catch the next lorry. People sometimes don't want to let you in. It can be much less stressful to just stay in the middle. Every situation is different of course.
Edited by herewego on Thursday 28th September 12:02
It's difficult to get back in 'cos of all the middle lane hoggers
If everyone used the lanes as they should then it would ease matters a lot.Do you think we should allow "undertaking" as in the States?[/quote] No more than it already is.
benadams said:
Do you think that all speed cameras should be scrapped?
Absolutely they should be all scrapped.
benadams said:
Don’t get me wrong - I think speed camera should be scrapped from normal open roads, duel carriage ways and motorways where there aren’t pedestrians around
Total agreement.
benadams said:
but how about in villages or towns where there are people crossing the road or children running about?
This is a red herring, the supposed benefits of a scamera near a school or a hospital.
The fact is that they divert attention from the road where its supposed to be, and having that occuring large scale in the vicinities of schools and hospitals ect will lead to only one thing; A rise in accidents.
While youre watching the scamera, youre not watching the road.
benadams said:
I know in my village which is supposed to be a 30mph zone we always get tts coming through the place doing twice the speed limit.
ts coming through the place doing twice the speed limit.Thats the nature of the beast that is "traffic" im afraid. Why penalise ALL drivers just cos of a few "twats"? Get a patrol car out there and stop the idiots. A scamera dosent do that and never will.
benadams said:
It only takes a child to run out into the road (despite all that road safety stuff their taught at school) and the child would probably be dead - now surly this is a case where speed does cause accidents and kill people.
A simplistic argument and one thats very nearly totally wrong.
Its not possible to collide with a pedestrian if they keep to their respective sections of the transport system.
The "speed" isnt the cause, its the two participants meeting thats the cause. The speed only figures in the equation after the two meet. If the two dont meet then theres no amount of speed going to make an accident.
Here's an idea. Lets look at the numbers and do the maths properly.
I suspect that speed is a major factor in accidents that kill people. I also suspect that those speeding and involved in accidents are also either drunk, already banned, stonned, late for something or an idiot.
IQ tests designed specifically to test apptitude of drivers anyone?
Now that would be controversial as a lot of the "super intelligent" folk I have met are quite bad at driving.
I suspect that speed is a major factor in accidents that kill people. I also suspect that those speeding and involved in accidents are also either drunk, already banned, stonned, late for something or an idiot.
IQ tests designed specifically to test apptitude of drivers anyone?
Now that would be controversial as a lot of the "super intelligent" folk I have met are quite bad at driving.
Drgp said:
Here's an idea. Lets look at the numbers and do the maths properly.
An excellent idea!
Drgp said:
I suspect that speed is a major factor in accidents that kill people.
Obviously two participants meeting at a velocity will not necessarily be a good thing with a good outcome.
Speed on its own isnt a determining factor as to whether or not youll survive.
Theres another none quoted (by dft at least) factor and thats MASS. A 38 tonner doing 15mph carries a sight more inertia than a car doing twice that speed....whats your poison?
Drgp said:
I also suspect that those speeding and involved in accidents are also either drunk, already banned, stonned, late for something or an idiot.
Youre likely to be right in your assertion, but why is someone exceeding a speed limit an "idiot"????
Drgp said:
IQ tests designed specifically to test apptitude of drivers anyone?
Thats a great idea, we could call it a "driving test"...
Drgp said:
Now that would be controversial as a lot of the "super intelligent" folk I have met are quite bad at driving.
Not really controversial as its already been done. The thing is, they should introduce "attitude" tests as well as "aptitude" tests into the equation, thatd sort out the non hackers.
Edited by Deltafox on Thursday 28th September 12:24
benadams said:
It only takes a child to run out into the road (despite all that road safety stuff their taught at school) and the child would probably be dead - now surly this is a case where speed does cause accidents and kill people.
In your (hopefully hypothetical) situation, speed neither caused the accident, nor killed the child. What caused the accident was the child entering the path of the car - or running into the road. What killed the child was (the collision resulting from) the inability of the car driver to anticipate the potential for a child to run out in front of their car, and to moderate their speed to a level which - with their capabilities - could be controlled in an emergency so as to avoid a collision. It's all well and good saying 'children shouldn't play in the road', but they may not know any better. They may have to cross the road but haven't had the opportunity to develop sufficient caution and awareness. I don't see how a speed camera would necessarily prevent this accident occuring. If a driver is so naive, irresponsible and stupid as to drive at over 60 through a village where it is quite possible a child could suddenly run into the road, they're more likely to be fiddling with their iPOD than looking out for a speed camera.
Your scenario is as much an argument for obsevation, anticipation and awareness as low speed limits.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff