RE: Road Casualty Figures 2006
Thursday 27th September 2007
The latest road accident figures have come out and already they've been hit with controversy.
Buried in the Department for Transport (DfT) report is the statistic that fatal crashes with 'exceeding the speed limit' as a contributory factor have increased - despite the vast numbers of speed cameras now on our roads.
The figures also claim that the total number of accidents is in decline even though traffic has risen by 15 per cent since 1998.
The DfT also say the number of drink drivers killed or seriously injured has dropped by 4 per cent to 2,530.
The report states that the main contributory factor in road accidents is failing to look properly (35 per cent). Four of the six most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction.
For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35 per cent of fatal accidents.
But roads campaigner Paul Smith of Safe Speed, says: "I have been warning for years that Department for Transport has been damaging UK road safety by neglecting driver quality.
"These new figures show that driver quality is in substantial decline with clear increases in a number of factors that depend on driver quality."
He added: "Fatal crashes with 'exceeding the speed limit' as a contributory factor have increased from 12 per cent last year to 14 per cent this year indicating that speed cameras are not reducing these deaths. This was entirely predictable.
"Just like last year, 95 per cent of all crashes do not involve any vehicle exceeding a speed limit, confirming once more that speed cameras are chasing a small and unnecessary target."
Capt Gasto, Campaigns Director for Motorists Against Detection, told Pistonheads.com: "Quite simply the increase is due to the fact that we are all concentrating on our speedos and not on what's going on around us."
Road Casualty Figures 2006
Department for Transport controversial facts and figures
Buried in the Department for Transport (DfT) report is the statistic that fatal crashes with 'exceeding the speed limit' as a contributory factor have increased - despite the vast numbers of speed cameras now on our roads.
The figures also claim that the total number of accidents is in decline even though traffic has risen by 15 per cent since 1998.
The DfT also say the number of drink drivers killed or seriously injured has dropped by 4 per cent to 2,530.
The report states that the main contributory factor in road accidents is failing to look properly (35 per cent). Four of the six most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction.
For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35 per cent of fatal accidents.
But roads campaigner Paul Smith of Safe Speed, says: "I have been warning for years that Department for Transport has been damaging UK road safety by neglecting driver quality.
"These new figures show that driver quality is in substantial decline with clear increases in a number of factors that depend on driver quality."
He added: "Fatal crashes with 'exceeding the speed limit' as a contributory factor have increased from 12 per cent last year to 14 per cent this year indicating that speed cameras are not reducing these deaths. This was entirely predictable.
"Just like last year, 95 per cent of all crashes do not involve any vehicle exceeding a speed limit, confirming once more that speed cameras are chasing a small and unnecessary target."
Capt Gasto, Campaigns Director for Motorists Against Detection, told Pistonheads.com: "Quite simply the increase is due to the fact that we are all concentrating on our speedos and not on what's going on around us."
Discussion
I was just reading the figures in the report and notice they have both Slippery road (due to weather) and Travelling too fast for conditions under seperate headings. Now what is the difference?
Surely if you slip off a road you are going too fast for the conditions!
Or is it that one fits into the anti-speed stats and the other doesn't (hence the larger number being in too fast for conditions section.)
Surely if you slip off a road you are going too fast for the conditions!
Or is it that one fits into the anti-speed stats and the other doesn't (hence the larger number being in too fast for conditions section.)
RacingPete said:
I was just reading the figures in the report and notice they have both Slippery road (due to weather) and Travelling too fast for conditions under seperate headings. Now what is the difference?
Surely if you slip off a road you are going too fast for the conditions!
Or is it that one fits into the anti-speed stats and the other doesn't (hence the larger number being in too fast for conditions section.)
No, your being too restricted in your view. You're drivin along at 29mph, in fine weather with good driving conditions. you get to a roundabout, and instead of negociating it safely at a reduced speed, you end up spinning off and crashing. When you get out of the car you realise the road surface is covered in spilt diesel, therefore your car slipped on a patch of 'slippery road', which has nothing to do with the general driving conditions... (weather etc)Surely if you slip off a road you are going too fast for the conditions!
Or is it that one fits into the anti-speed stats and the other doesn't (hence the larger number being in too fast for conditions section.)
Tony*T3 said:
RacingPete said:
I was just reading the figures in the report and notice they have both Slippery road (due to weather) and Travelling too fast for conditions under seperate headings. Now what is the difference?
Surely if you slip off a road you are going too fast for the conditions!
Or is it that one fits into the anti-speed stats and the other doesn't (hence the larger number being in too fast for conditions section.)
No, your being too restricted in your view. You're drivin along at 29mph, in fine weather with good driving conditions. you get to a roundabout, and instead of negociating it safely at a reduced speed, you end up spinning off and crashing. When you get out of the car you realise the road surface is covered in spilt diesel, therefore your car slipped on a patch of 'slippery road', which has nothing to do with the general driving conditions... (weather etc)Surely if you slip off a road you are going too fast for the conditions!
Or is it that one fits into the anti-speed stats and the other doesn't (hence the larger number being in too fast for conditions section.)
Edited by varsas on Thursday 27th September 13:50
Tony*T3 said:
When you get out of the car you realise the road surface is covered in spilt diesel, therefore your car slipped on a patch of 'slippery road', which has nothing to do with the general driving conditions... (weather etc)
But that would be Road environment contributed - Deposit on road (eg. oil, mud, chippings) which is another seperate section.Tony*T3 said:
RacingPete said:
I was just reading the figures in the report and notice they have both Slippery road (due to weather) and Travelling too fast for conditions under seperate headings. Now what is the difference?
Surely if you slip off a road you are going too fast for the conditions!
Or is it that one fits into the anti-speed stats and the other doesn't (hence the larger number being in too fast for conditions section.)
No, your being too restricted in your view. You're drivin along at 29mph, in fine weather with good driving conditions. you get to a roundabout, and instead of negociating it safely at a reduced speed, you end up spinning off and crashing. When you get out of the car you realise the road surface is covered in spilt diesel, therefore your car slipped on a patch of 'slippery road', which has nothing to do with the general driving conditions... (weather etc)Surely if you slip off a road you are going too fast for the conditions!
Or is it that one fits into the anti-speed stats and the other doesn't (hence the larger number being in too fast for conditions section.)
We all do it now, see the camera and look at our speedos, and then wonder if our speedos are accurate enough, and afaik we're the only country doing this now.
It would be good for someone to do a cross analysis of the penalty/endorsements for an action against the amount of deaths caused by it. For example talking on the phone resulted in 28 deaths last year, but following too close resulted in 43 deaths.
I know that all deaths are bad and that we have to impose fines on certain things, but it seems that there is a bandwagen to blame certain activities, when in fact they are quite low in the statistics of deaths.
I know that all deaths are bad and that we have to impose fines on certain things, but it seems that there is a bandwagen to blame certain activities, when in fact they are quite low in the statistics of deaths.
RacingPete said:
Tony*T3 said:
When you get out of the car you realise the road surface is covered in spilt diesel, therefore your car slipped on a patch of 'slippery road', which has nothing to do with the general driving conditions... (weather etc)
But that would be Road environment contributed - Deposit on road (eg. oil, mud, chippings) which is another seperate section.And they generally rely on overworked coppers to make the assesment of cause, and I'm sure they dont jump to conclusions.
most interesting comment for me was that drivers often use the 'I didnt see it' excuse when it usually means they werent concentrating or even looking, instead of admitting to something like being distracted by using the phone or similar.
RacingPete said:
It would be good for someone to do a cross analysis of the penalty/endorsements for an action against the amount of deaths caused by it. For example talking on the phone resulted in 28 deaths last year, but following too close resulted in 43 deaths.
I know that all deaths are bad and that we have to impose fines on certain things, but it seems that there is a bandwagen to blame certain activities, when in fact they are quite low in the statistics of deaths.
it must also be remembered that accidents usually have multiple causes, so the statistics are unbalanced. It would be better if there was a weighting for each indevidual cause of an accident.I know that all deaths are bad and that we have to impose fines on certain things, but it seems that there is a bandwagen to blame certain activities, when in fact they are quite low in the statistics of deaths.
For instance, accident caused by 'Failure to see'. Probably should read 'Failed to look because I was doing something else' or 'I was daydreaming and I didnt see the whatever I hit'.
Agreed.. there are far too many categories that can be misleading or ones that overlap. For example you are driving too fast while on a mobile phone and crash into a car that was parked illegally while the sun was in your face, which one is really the cause of the crash?
I bet someone says Driver stupidity
I bet someone says Driver stupidity
RacingPete said:
Agreed.. there are far too many categories that can be misleading or ones that overlap. For example you are driving too fast while on a mobile phone and crash into a car that was parked illegally while the sun was in your face, which one is really the cause of the crash?
I bet someone says Driver stupidity
Well yes; you did.I bet someone says Driver stupidity
Advanced test madatory, and retake every 5 years, two further tests after you pass every 3 years, every 3 for the over 65. After 6 years (when every driver has had a least one test) raise the non-city speed limits by 50%. Ergo safter and faster roads, in (very simple) theory.
Oh wait that would cost money, so more speed cameras, easy/cheap tests, more fuel tax/parking tax/income tax/tax tax and a scheme like road pricing that would cost more than it would ever rake in, now THATS the way to go
Oh wait that would cost money, so more speed cameras, easy/cheap tests, more fuel tax/parking tax/income tax/tax tax and a scheme like road pricing that would cost more than it would ever rake in, now THATS the way to go
The one that really stand out for me is the:
"35% of all accidents caused on the road are by people failing to look properly"
So seven times more people are in an accident caused by Driver Error than than speeding.
Driver Error through failure to look is the single bigest contributor for fatal, serious and slight accidents in the UK.
Traveling too fast for conditions contributes to 18% of all fatal accidents and 11% of total accidents in the UK.
If it's wet, foggy, icey, snowy it's common sense to slow down.
Why are the police and the government not investing money into more driver education?
"35% of all accidents caused on the road are by people failing to look properly"
So seven times more people are in an accident caused by Driver Error than than speeding.
Driver Error through failure to look is the single bigest contributor for fatal, serious and slight accidents in the UK.
Traveling too fast for conditions contributes to 18% of all fatal accidents and 11% of total accidents in the UK.
If it's wet, foggy, icey, snowy it's common sense to slow down.
Why are the police and the government not investing money into more driver education?
Bizzle said:
The one that really stand out for me is the:
"35% of all accidents caused on the road are by people failing to look properly"
So seven times more people are in an accident caused by Driver Error than than speeding.
Driver Error through failure to look is the single bigest contributor for fatal, serious and slight accidents in the UK.
Traveling too fast for conditions contributes to 18% of all fatal accidents and 11% of total accidents in the UK.
If it's wet, foggy, icey, snowy it's common sense to slow down.
Why are the police and the government not investing money into more driver education?
Does higher speed by or around someone who doesn't look properly, create a greater or lesser threat ?"35% of all accidents caused on the road are by people failing to look properly"
So seven times more people are in an accident caused by Driver Error than than speeding.
Driver Error through failure to look is the single bigest contributor for fatal, serious and slight accidents in the UK.
Traveling too fast for conditions contributes to 18% of all fatal accidents and 11% of total accidents in the UK.
If it's wet, foggy, icey, snowy it's common sense to slow down.
Why are the police and the government not investing money into more driver education?
A wonderful quote in the report that effectively blows apart any claims that SIs are reducing:
p62 details of injury said:
'Serious' accidents include all admitted to hospital or any of the following injuries: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, non-friction burns, severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and any injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident.
Note that severity is judged by the police, who are not medical experts and may misclassify serious injuries as slight or vice versa.
Note that severity is judged by the police, who are not medical experts and may misclassify serious injuries as slight or vice versa.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff