RE: Road casualties: figures released
Thursday 28th June 2007
The government has released today what it calls ‘the main results’ from its ‘Road Casualties in Great Britain 2006’ statistics:
Road casualties: figures released
The main results from the 2006 statistics
- The number of people killed in road accidents fell by 1 per cent from 3,201 in 2005 to 3,172 in 2006. 31,845 people were killed or seriously injured in 2006, 1 per cent fewer than in 2005. There were 258,404 road casualties in Great Britain in 2006, 5 per cent less than in 2005.
- There were 189,161 road accidents involving personal injury in 2006, 5 per cent fewer than in 2005. Of these, 27,872 accidents involved death or serious injury, less than 1 per cent fewer than in 2005 (27,942).
- The number of deaths among car users in 2006 was 1,612, 4 per cent less than in the previous year. The number seriously injured fell by 2 per cent to 12,642. Total casualties among car users were 171,000, 4 per cent lower than 2005. Provisional traffic estimates indicate a 1 per cent rise in car and taxi traffic over the period.
- Child casualties fell by 9 per cent. The number of children killed or seriously injured in 2006 was 3,294 (down 5 per cent on 2005). Of those, 2,025 were pedestrians, 5 per cent down on 2005. 169 children died on the roads, 20 per cent more than in 2005, this was about the same level as 2004 (166) which at that time was the lowest ever recorded figure.
- There were 675 pedestrian deaths, 1 per cent more than in 2005. Killed or serious injured casualties fell by 1 per cent to 7,051. The all pedestrian casualty figure fell to 30,982 in 2006, 7 per cent lower than 2005.
- The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 1 per cent from 148 in 2005 to 146 in 2006. The number of seriously injured rose by 4 per cent to 2,296. However, total casualties among pedal cyclists fell by 2 per cent in 2006 to 16,196.
- There were 599 motorcycle user fatalities in 2006, 5 per cent higher than during 2005. The number of killed or seriously injured remained at about the same level compared to 2005 (down less than 1 per cent from 6,508 in 2005 to 6,484 in 2006). The all motorcycle user casualties figure for 2006 of 23,326 is 6 per cent less than in 2005.
However, Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, comented: "The fall of just under 1% in road deaths is further damning evidence of policy failure. Most of our European neighbours are achieving falls of 4% or more and we're entitled to at least that."
"It's obvious from this appalling set of figures that road safety policy isn't working. Pedestrian deaths are up. Child pedestrian deaths are up. Motorcyclist deaths are up. Bus and coach occupant deaths are up. Only car occupant deaths are down, and it's perfectly clear that car occupants are benefiting from improved car technology."
"Department for Transport policies based on the grossly oversimplified notion that 'speed kills' are making matters worse and have been for years. We have to get rid of that notion and build real policies that save real lives again. The best way to start is to get rid of speed cameras because they symbolise the failed policies and the failed thinking."
"20mph zones, speed limit reductions, traffic calming and speed cameras are all wrong-headed policies which aren't working to save British lives. Department for Transport has got it wrong in spades and must be held accountable."
"The serious injury statistics are known to be subject to a huge degree of under-reporting. It is perfectly obvious that the degree of under-reporting is increasing making the figures quite unsuitable for year on year comparison.While serious injuries fell by 35% over a decade, road crash hospitalisations showed a slight rise. Department for Transport claims to be 'investigating' which I presume means that they are still trying to pluck up the courage to admit that their serious injury figures are bunk. They should be ashamed of themselves. Lives are at stake."
"These figures highlight the huge importance to road safety of Safe Speed's 'Scrap Speed Cameras Week'. We have to scrap speed cameras because they are the main symbol of a fatally flawed and ill founded policy that has failed catastrophically.
"Over 28,000 signed our 'Scrap Speed Cameras' petition. They know that something has gone seriously wrong. Why don't Department for Transport?"
Discussion
Beginning to wonder if common sense will ever prevail.
On the back of this, the government have just responded to an ePetition to scrap cameras.
Their response :
[quote]Thank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on the Number 10 website.
Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain.
The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.
We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few years.
Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.
Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's roads each year.
And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our road safety strategy.
[/quote]
They are living with their heads in the sand
On the back of this, the government have just responded to an ePetition to scrap cameras.
Their response :
[quote]Thank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on the Number 10 website.
Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain.
The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.
We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few years.
Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.
Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's roads each year.
And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our road safety strategy.
[/quote]
They are living with their heads in the sand
/start od rant
I would like something done about the HUGE amount of non-licensed, non-insured and non-MOTed vehicles on the road. A high proportion of traffic accidents involve these types of vehicles/drivers. If you remove them from the roads you'll reduce the accidents, simple! It's not rocket science.
I would start by replacing mobile speed cameras with mobile ANPR cameras. Every time a non-insured, banned, etc driver is caught come down hard. All they get at the moment is a slap on the wrist. It's no deterrent when it costs them more to be legal!
I would also increase traffic police on the roads significantly. Again prosecute harder than is currently for dangerous driving. Repeat offenders should be banned, and if caught driving while banned there should be a mandatory prison sentence. You'll soon find this becomes an effective deterrent and the number of banned drivers on the road will drop significantly. This will in turn lead to less accidents.
No new speed cameras, and start removing them from all but the most severe danger spots. It should be clear from the evidence now that speed cameras don't generally reduce accidents and just seriously piss off the law abiding general public.
Take the above actions and you'll see accident rates drop, the roads will become safer more pleasant places to be, and you'll drastically improve the general publics perception of road policing.
/end of rant
I would like something done about the HUGE amount of non-licensed, non-insured and non-MOTed vehicles on the road. A high proportion of traffic accidents involve these types of vehicles/drivers. If you remove them from the roads you'll reduce the accidents, simple! It's not rocket science.
I would start by replacing mobile speed cameras with mobile ANPR cameras. Every time a non-insured, banned, etc driver is caught come down hard. All they get at the moment is a slap on the wrist. It's no deterrent when it costs them more to be legal!
I would also increase traffic police on the roads significantly. Again prosecute harder than is currently for dangerous driving. Repeat offenders should be banned, and if caught driving while banned there should be a mandatory prison sentence. You'll soon find this becomes an effective deterrent and the number of banned drivers on the road will drop significantly. This will in turn lead to less accidents.
No new speed cameras, and start removing them from all but the most severe danger spots. It should be clear from the evidence now that speed cameras don't generally reduce accidents and just seriously piss off the law abiding general public.
Take the above actions and you'll see accident rates drop, the roads will become safer more pleasant places to be, and you'll drastically improve the general publics perception of road policing.
/end of rant
bus_ter said:
/start od rant
I would like something done about the HUGE amount of non-licensed, non-insured and non-MOTed vehicles on the road. A high proportion of traffic accidents involve these types of vehicles/drivers. If you remove them from the roads you'll reduce the accidents, simple! It's not rocket science.
I would start by replacing mobile speed cameras with mobile ANPR cameras. Every time a non-insured, banned, etc driver is caught come down hard. All they get at the moment is a slap on the wrist. It's no deterrent when it costs them more to be legal!
I would also increase traffic police on the roads significantly. Again prosecute harder than is currently for dangerous driving. Repeat offenders should be banned, and if caught driving while banned there should be a mandatory prison sentence. You'll soon find this becomes an effective deterrent and the number of banned drivers on the road will drop significantly. This will in turn lead to less accidents.
No new speed cameras, and start removing them from all but the most severe danger spots. It should be clear from the evidence now that speed cameras don't generally reduce accidents and just seriously piss off the law abiding general public.
Take the above actions and you'll see accident rates drop, the roads will become safer more pleasant places to be, and you'll drastically improve the general publics perception of road policing.
/end of rant
I would like something done about the HUGE amount of non-licensed, non-insured and non-MOTed vehicles on the road. A high proportion of traffic accidents involve these types of vehicles/drivers. If you remove them from the roads you'll reduce the accidents, simple! It's not rocket science.
I would start by replacing mobile speed cameras with mobile ANPR cameras. Every time a non-insured, banned, etc driver is caught come down hard. All they get at the moment is a slap on the wrist. It's no deterrent when it costs them more to be legal!
I would also increase traffic police on the roads significantly. Again prosecute harder than is currently for dangerous driving. Repeat offenders should be banned, and if caught driving while banned there should be a mandatory prison sentence. You'll soon find this becomes an effective deterrent and the number of banned drivers on the road will drop significantly. This will in turn lead to less accidents.
No new speed cameras, and start removing them from all but the most severe danger spots. It should be clear from the evidence now that speed cameras don't generally reduce accidents and just seriously piss off the law abiding general public.
Take the above actions and you'll see accident rates drop, the roads will become safer more pleasant places to be, and you'll drastically improve the general publics perception of road policing.
/end of rant
I wish Paul luck, but all the while this bunch are in power they're not going to change things...they've wedded themselves too closely to the damn policy.
I also don't think the public will mass-protest over this, which would be the only other (possible...although look at Iraq and hunting) way of changing things.
Nope...our only hope of getting things turned around is David Cameron!
:runsandhides:
I also don't think the public will mass-protest over this, which would be the only other (possible...although look at Iraq and hunting) way of changing things.
Nope...our only hope of getting things turned around is David Cameron!
:runsandhides:PhantomPH said:
Beginning to wonder if common sense will ever prevail.
On the back of this, the government have just responded to an ePetition to scrap cameras.
Their response :
[quote]Thank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on the Number 10 website.
Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain.
The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.
...
Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.
...
And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our road safety strategy.
On the back of this, the government have just responded to an ePetition to scrap cameras.
Their response :
[quote]Thank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on the Number 10 website.
Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain.
The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.
...
Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.
...
And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our road safety strategy.
Mr Paul Smith, Please sir, keep the fight going.
HMG said:
We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few years.
No problem with that. I do object to Scameras on long straight low volume NSL DC's, or falsely reduced limits purely for cash. I was always told by old school IAM bike observers, do 30 or less in a 30, 40 or thereabouts in a 40, and go like hell on an NSL!Alfanatic said:
Really? If a child has an 80% chance of surviving being hit at 30mph and 80% chance of dying at 40mph, and more people are sticking to 30mph, why are child deaths up by 20%?
As I understand it, the figures show a 5% fall for child pedestrian deaths, though total numbers were up - ie more were killed IN forms of transport as they crashed.havoc said:
I wish Paul luck...
I don't need luck. I need support. We have won the 'facts' war, but we still need to enhance our means of delivery.http://www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html
The sad fact is that the majority of people who have the power to change these policies see nothing wrong with them. They've all been taken in by the 'speed kills, slow down and your safe' way of thinking and it will take a hell of a lot to change their minds.
Prime example on the local radio up here (Aberdeen) the other day. News story about how scamera revenue is down 20% in the North East of Scotland from last year. Que woman from some road "safety" (not what I would call it) group, "This shows that speed cameras are working, people are slowing down...blah blah".
No, it shows that less people are getting caught by the scameras, which could well be down to the fact that people know where they all are, and more importantly, even if everyone is slowing down, is it making the roads any safer/reducing casualties?
Number of people killed on the NE's roads in 2005 - 53
Number of people killed on the NE's roads in 2006 - 62...
I rest my case.
Oh, and as a side note, a gem of a quote from the Grampian Police's 'road safety manager' Leslie Harrold.
"There are 4 main reasons why accidents happen: people are speeding, they have been drinking, they are not wearing their seat belts or are talking on a mobile phone"
Seriously, these are the kind of people in charge of making our roads "safer". Apparently if I drive at the speed limit, while sober, with my seat belt on and don't use my phone, it's very unlikely I'll have an accident. Nonsense, what about if I'm on drugs, doing 60mph round a corner on a single track country lane in the p*ssing rain? Idiot.
And how in the hell does not wearing your seat belt make it more likely you'll have an accident!?!
Rant over!
Prime example on the local radio up here (Aberdeen) the other day. News story about how scamera revenue is down 20% in the North East of Scotland from last year. Que woman from some road "safety" (not what I would call it) group, "This shows that speed cameras are working, people are slowing down...blah blah".
No, it shows that less people are getting caught by the scameras, which could well be down to the fact that people know where they all are, and more importantly, even if everyone is slowing down, is it making the roads any safer/reducing casualties?
Number of people killed on the NE's roads in 2005 - 53
Number of people killed on the NE's roads in 2006 - 62...
I rest my case.
Oh, and as a side note, a gem of a quote from the Grampian Police's 'road safety manager' Leslie Harrold.
"There are 4 main reasons why accidents happen: people are speeding, they have been drinking, they are not wearing their seat belts or are talking on a mobile phone"
Seriously, these are the kind of people in charge of making our roads "safer". Apparently if I drive at the speed limit, while sober, with my seat belt on and don't use my phone, it's very unlikely I'll have an accident. Nonsense, what about if I'm on drugs, doing 60mph round a corner on a single track country lane in the p*ssing rain? Idiot.
And how in the hell does not wearing your seat belt make it more likely you'll have an accident!?!
Rant over!
Tinohead said:
News story about how scamera revenue is down 20% in the North East of Scotland from last year. Que woman from some road "safety" (not what I would call it) group, "This shows that speed cameras are working, people are slowing down...blah blah".
No, it shows that less people are getting caught by the scameras, which could well be down to the fact that people know where they all are, and more importantly, even if everyone is slowing down, is it making the roads any safer/reducing casualties?
Number of people killed on the NE's roads in 2005 - 53
Number of people killed on the NE's roads in 2006 - 62...
I rest my case.
Rant over!
Good post, but in my view you have missed the most pertinent point: the road saferty woman is right, cameras ARE slowing people down. But they are also proving there is no link between speed and death, as "proven" slower drivers sits next to an increase in road deaths.No, it shows that less people are getting caught by the scameras, which could well be down to the fact that people know where they all are, and more importantly, even if everyone is slowing down, is it making the roads any safer/reducing casualties?
Number of people killed on the NE's roads in 2005 - 53
Number of people killed on the NE's roads in 2006 - 62...
I rest my case.
Rant over!
PhantomPH said:
Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's roads each year.
So of the reduction of 27,000 injuries or death only 4,200 are attributed to Safety Cameras. So that's 20% of the total saved or 0.2% of the 1% drop in the total injury figures.Can't help but think (from a Professional point of view) that there is a more effective and efficient way of achieving this. Oh wait Civil Service isn't a Professional body. That explains it.
Also just had my propaganda laden reply to the scrapcam petition.
As you probably know, Brown was very big on the word 'change' when he took over as PM yesterday.
Be interesting to see if his actions match his words or whether we'll just get more of the same money grabbing control freak policies.
I know which I'd bet on...
As you probably know, Brown was very big on the word 'change' when he took over as PM yesterday.
Be interesting to see if his actions match his words or whether we'll just get more of the same money grabbing control freak policies.
I know which I'd bet on...
"It's obvious from this appalling set of figures that road safety policy isn't working."
"Department for Transport has got it wrong in spades and must be held accountable."
"They should be ashamed of themselves. Lives are at stake."
"We have to scrap speed cameras because they are the main symbol of a fatally flawed and ill founded policy that has failed catastrophically."
Keep up the emotive journalism, Paul - it always puts a smile on my face!
"Department for Transport has got it wrong in spades and must be held accountable."
"They should be ashamed of themselves. Lives are at stake."
"We have to scrap speed cameras because they are the main symbol of a fatally flawed and ill founded policy that has failed catastrophically."
Keep up the emotive journalism, Paul - it always puts a smile on my face!
PhantomPH said:
The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.
so they won't mind removing all the speed cameras on roads where there are not pedestrian children then?Govt Response said:
The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.
One further question to ask is why is the child in the road in the path of a vehicle traveling at any speed? - It's usually much safer on the pavement! I know kids can just run out (I did when I was young, but stopped before I ran into the path of a car), but what about educating the kids/parents etc to be careful of the road rather than automatically blaming the motorist and saying that it is their fault? If there are no kids on the road then they can't be hit - another way to help reduce the figures.Alex
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff