Too much emphasis on speeding?
Discussion
I was watching Panarama last night where they were reporting on the increase of accidents and consequently deaths in the UK. A lot of this was blamed on the slow demise of the traffic officer but one thing that strikes me time and time again is that speed seems to be the main focus on driving in the UK.
For example, they were travelling a road in Scotland beside Loch Lomond (I can't remember the name of it), but the report was talking about the general condition of the road i.e being too narrow, right beside a cliff edge, etc. Then they went on to say there should be more speed cameras along there. I cannot understand how a speed camera will make a road wider or improve the condition of it.
Time and time again we are told that excessive speed is a big conern in this country, but in my experience it doesn't seem to be the biggest risk out there by a long shot! I understand that excessive speed CAN be a problem but I would suggest its the poor standard of driving and awareness that seems to be the biggest problem. The majority of the time I seem to be stuck behind a queue of people travelling at 40mph dithering around, not indicating, and being generally crap. It's very rare I see someone causing a problem with their excessive speed! My opinion is that the emphasis on speeding has brought about an attitude of "If I'm not speeding I'm driving properly" so everything else gets ignored. In my opinion the emphasis on speed in the media has created it's own dangers in that the general attitude of the public being that they can drive however they like as long as that needle remains on or under the limit. I'd be interested to see what others thing being a forum for cars/bikes attracting people who are actually interested in driving.
For example, they were travelling a road in Scotland beside Loch Lomond (I can't remember the name of it), but the report was talking about the general condition of the road i.e being too narrow, right beside a cliff edge, etc. Then they went on to say there should be more speed cameras along there. I cannot understand how a speed camera will make a road wider or improve the condition of it.
Time and time again we are told that excessive speed is a big conern in this country, but in my experience it doesn't seem to be the biggest risk out there by a long shot! I understand that excessive speed CAN be a problem but I would suggest its the poor standard of driving and awareness that seems to be the biggest problem. The majority of the time I seem to be stuck behind a queue of people travelling at 40mph dithering around, not indicating, and being generally crap. It's very rare I see someone causing a problem with their excessive speed! My opinion is that the emphasis on speeding has brought about an attitude of "If I'm not speeding I'm driving properly" so everything else gets ignored. In my opinion the emphasis on speed in the media has created it's own dangers in that the general attitude of the public being that they can drive however they like as long as that needle remains on or under the limit. I'd be interested to see what others thing being a forum for cars/bikes attracting people who are actually interested in driving.
I see the focus on speed control as a tacit admission that they can't (or won't) improve driving standards so focus on something that is easily captured and punishable instead.
There are also the revenue benefits, along with the justification that bad drivers are less dangerous if they're travelling slower.....
There are also the revenue benefits, along with the justification that bad drivers are less dangerous if they're travelling slower.....
I watched this last night and must admit I was amazed that they were on national TV letting the country know which counties had all of their speed cameras turned off etc.
Suddenly made me think you could go to Wiltshire and pretty much ignore all speed cameras and not even worry about seeing many traffic cops!
Suddenly made me think you could go to Wiltshire and pretty much ignore all speed cameras and not even worry about seeing many traffic cops!
Muzzer79 said:
I see the focus on speed control as a tacit admission that they can't (or won't) improve driving standards so focus on something that is easily captured and punishable instead.
There are also the revenue benefits, along with the justification that bad drivers are less dangerous if they're travelling slower.....
I agree with thisThere are also the revenue benefits, along with the justification that bad drivers are less dangerous if they're travelling slower.....
Speed cameras do not sort the problem, poor road design, bad training and general ambivalence to driving does not help
I can be a safe driver doing 70 in a 50 but I can also be a dangerous driver doing 40 in a 60
I appreciate you have to apply more of a "blanket case" that covers the majority but, it has always been a "SPEED KILLS" issue rather than most accidents being down to driver f
k ups (which is actually the case) I agree that shouting "Speed Kills!" does nothing to eradicate the root cause of most accidents, however you have to apply 1 measure to reduce the severity of accidents, ensuring nobody drives fast is quite effective. I would much prefer that emphasis be put on driver training and ensuring all drivers pay attention to the road and conditions, but we all know that in today's world, where blame can always be attributed to someone else (apparently), it's never going to happen!
The problem though is that the injuries sustained in a collision are proportional to the energy imparted to the occupants involved. This is largely a function of how fast they are travelling at the time of impact.
In a world of limited financial spend on road safety, it is likely to be the case that lowering speed will bring the biggest return on investment v other options so will be attractive on a business case.
If you are in a local authority, strapped for cash because social care and other pressures is sucking in all your funding yet still have to try to make the roads safer, reducing speeds by means of automated enforcement is likely to bring bigger gains per £ than trying to teach people to drive better.
In a world of limited financial spend on road safety, it is likely to be the case that lowering speed will bring the biggest return on investment v other options so will be attractive on a business case.
If you are in a local authority, strapped for cash because social care and other pressures is sucking in all your funding yet still have to try to make the roads safer, reducing speeds by means of automated enforcement is likely to bring bigger gains per £ than trying to teach people to drive better.
blueST said:
The problem though is that the injuries sustained in a collision are proportional to the energy imparted to the occupants involved. This is largely a function of how fast they are travelling at the time of impact.
In a world of limited financial spend on road safety, it is likely to be the case that lowering speed will bring the biggest return on investment v other options so will be attractive on a business case.
If you are in a local authority, strapped for cash because social care and other pressures is sucking in all your funding yet still have to try to make the roads safer, reducing speeds by means of automated enforcement is likely to bring bigger gains per £ than trying to teach people to drive better.
That would only work if the majority of accidents that happen, are above the speed limit. Accidents at above the speed limit are in the small minority, most happen at well within speed limits.In a world of limited financial spend on road safety, it is likely to be the case that lowering speed will bring the biggest return on investment v other options so will be attractive on a business case.
If you are in a local authority, strapped for cash because social care and other pressures is sucking in all your funding yet still have to try to make the roads safer, reducing speeds by means of automated enforcement is likely to bring bigger gains per £ than trying to teach people to drive better.
Nurburgsingh said:
its easier to moan about the outcome rather than address the problem.
If they spent the money on actually teaching people how to drive rather than just 'passing the test' we wouldn't have as big a problem.
Yep, only passed a few months ago and I would only really say I learnt to drive about a month in.If they spent the money on actually teaching people how to drive rather than just 'passing the test' we wouldn't have as big a problem.
CarCrazyDad said:
Muzzer79 said:
I see the focus on speed control as a tacit admission that they can't (or won't) improve driving standards so focus on something that is easily captured and punishable instead.
There are also the revenue benefits, along with the justification that bad drivers are less dangerous if they're travelling slower.....
I agree with thisThere are also the revenue benefits, along with the justification that bad drivers are less dangerous if they're travelling slower.....
Speed cameras do not sort the problem, poor road design, bad training and general ambivalence to driving does not help
I can be a safe driver doing 70 in a 50 but I can also be a dangerous driver doing 40 in a 60
I appreciate you have to apply more of a "blanket case" that covers the majority but, it has always been a "SPEED KILLS" issue rather than most accidents being down to driver f
k ups (which is actually the case) Even if that is the case, there is still a driver for speed reduction if you accompany the enforcement with a reduction in the limit. So a good business case can be made for say reducing a 60mph rural road to 40 alongside average speed cameras.
8IKERDAVE said:
For example, they were travelling a road in Scotland beside Loch Lomond (I can't remember the name of it), but the report was talking about the general condition of the road i.e being too narrow, right beside a cliff edge, etc. Then they went on to say there should be more speed cameras along there. I cannot understand how a speed camera will make a road wider or improve the condition of it.
My guess would be that because some people's hazard perception is poor they might not recognise the risks of a narrow road/cliff edge and therefore a speed camera will force them to slow down, reducing the risks.Nurburgsingh said:
its easier to moan about the outcome rather than address the problem.
If they spent the money on actually teaching people how to drive rather than just 'passing the test' we wouldn't have as big a problem.
Everybody think "they" are a great driver and therefore don't need any more training, It's "others" who are crap. If they spent the money on actually teaching people how to drive rather than just 'passing the test' we wouldn't have as big a problem.
Speed doesn't kill, never has.
Inappropriate use of speed kills.
The problem is that a single test at 17 followed by decades of doing something badly doesn't equip a driver with the skills to make a decision on what is appropriate.
Mandatory further training within a certain time period of passing a driving test and then mandatory retraining at appropriate intervals is the answer.
Inappropriate use of speed kills.
The problem is that a single test at 17 followed by decades of doing something badly doesn't equip a driver with the skills to make a decision on what is appropriate.
Mandatory further training within a certain time period of passing a driving test and then mandatory retraining at appropriate intervals is the answer.
A report (Road Safety Research Report 87 - 2016? fig 5.5 on page 560) stated that speed above the posted limit was a factor (factor, not the only cause) in 7% of road collisions.
Broken down by age of driver:
2% for age 26+
7% for age 17-19
Also, "Travelling to fast for conditions" :
4% for age 26+
13% for age 17-19
I recall a science teacher once saying, "Measure what is important; don't make important what is easy to measure". Speed cameras ignore this sage bit of advice.
Broken down by age of driver:
2% for age 26+
7% for age 17-19
Also, "Travelling to fast for conditions" :
4% for age 26+
13% for age 17-19
I recall a science teacher once saying, "Measure what is important; don't make important what is easy to measure". Speed cameras ignore this sage bit of advice.
Alex@POD said:
I agree that shouting "Speed Kills!" does nothing to eradicate the root cause of most accidents, however you have to apply 1 measure to reduce the severity of accidents, ensuring nobody drives fast is quite effective. I would much prefer that emphasis be put on driver training and ensuring all drivers pay attention to the road and conditions, but we all know that in today's world, where blame can always be attributed to someone else (apparently), it's never going to happen!
This is basically it. Also someone driving conspicuously too fast through a built up area is more noticeable to pedestrians than a lot of other poor driving. blueST said:
CarCrazyDad said:
Muzzer79 said:
I see the focus on speed control as a tacit admission that they can't (or won't) improve driving standards so focus on something that is easily captured and punishable instead.
There are also the revenue benefits, along with the justification that bad drivers are less dangerous if they're travelling slower.....
I agree with thisThere are also the revenue benefits, along with the justification that bad drivers are less dangerous if they're travelling slower.....
Speed cameras do not sort the problem, poor road design, bad training and general ambivalence to driving does not help
I can be a safe driver doing 70 in a 50 but I can also be a dangerous driver doing 40 in a 60
I appreciate you have to apply more of a "blanket case" that covers the majority but, it has always been a "SPEED KILLS" issue rather than most accidents being down to driver f
k ups (which is actually the case) Even if that is the case, there is still a driver for speed reduction if you accompany the enforcement with a reduction in the limit. So a good business case can be made for say reducing a 60mph rural road to 40 alongside average speed cameras.
The stats are pretty clear most " accidents " are as a result of driver incompetence / mistake / lack of attention.
Lowering speed limits on wide, clear roads with good visibility (which is what tends to happen) does not help anything other than the Govt coffers, and frustrates motorists.
The problem is a cost -> outcome
To train drivers to use their brain and not be idiots, costs a lot of money and time.
To whap up a speed camera costs a few grand and a few hours
Trax said:
blueST said:
The problem though is that the injuries sustained in a collision are proportional to the energy imparted to the occupants involved. This is largely a function of how fast they are travelling at the time of impact.
In a world of limited financial spend on road safety, it is likely to be the case that lowering speed will bring the biggest return on investment v other options so will be attractive on a business case.
If you are in a local authority, strapped for cash because social care and other pressures is sucking in all your funding yet still have to try to make the roads safer, reducing speeds by means of automated enforcement is likely to bring bigger gains per £ than trying to teach people to drive better.
That would only work if the majority of accidents that happen, are above the speed limit. Accidents at above the speed limit are in the small minority, most happen at well within speed limits.In a world of limited financial spend on road safety, it is likely to be the case that lowering speed will bring the biggest return on investment v other options so will be attractive on a business case.
If you are in a local authority, strapped for cash because social care and other pressures is sucking in all your funding yet still have to try to make the roads safer, reducing speeds by means of automated enforcement is likely to bring bigger gains per £ than trying to teach people to drive better.
Speed determines the outcome of a collision, but poor observation (failing to look properly and failing to judge the path and movement of another vehicle) are major causes of collision.
Judging by knowledge of signs etc., on here, it is all about initial testing, and then constant re-training and learning that is needed. Pretty much every job or career needs regular updating to stay employed, it should be the same with driving.
CarCrazyDad said:
I disagree, there is a lot of evidence on such rural country roads (IE single narrow track lanes) people do not do 60 anyway.
The stats are pretty clear most " accidents " are as a result of driver incompetence / mistake / lack of attention.
Lowering speed limits on wide, clear roads with good visibility (which is what tends to happen) does not help anything other than the Govt coffers, and frustrates motorists.
The problem is a cost -> outcome
To train drivers to use their brain and not be idiots, costs a lot of money and time.
To whap up a speed camera costs a few grand and a few hours
The safety schemes are not aimed at all accidents though. They are aimed at those that cause the most serious injuries. I'm not defending the approach taken, but there is a reason why speed ios often targeted and its not to fill the governemtns coffers with money from fines.The stats are pretty clear most " accidents " are as a result of driver incompetence / mistake / lack of attention.
Lowering speed limits on wide, clear roads with good visibility (which is what tends to happen) does not help anything other than the Govt coffers, and frustrates motorists.
The problem is a cost -> outcome
To train drivers to use their brain and not be idiots, costs a lot of money and time.
To whap up a speed camera costs a few grand and a few hours
The stats are fairly simple...
this diagram below is from 2011 - the Guardian seemed to put up the equivalent in 2009 / 2010 / 2011 not sure of current figures and too much hassle to build my own (though the government does publish figures... all figures for England & Wales) - transport figures are in red top right (bottom left of the red blobs)
figures are:
2009 - Total deaths 491,348
Transport related: 2,284 (0.46%)
2010 - Total deaths 493,242
Transport related: 1,970 (0.4%)
2011
Total deaths 484,367
Transport related 1,815 (0.37%)
transport related = occupant in car / motorcyclist / pedestrian in collision with car or van
some interesting confirmation from Brake
The number of road deaths in the UK plateaued from 2012 to 2019 at around 1,850 deaths a year, or the equivalent of five a day, on average.
In 2020, 1,516 people were killed on UK roads (0.25%)
Overall deaths from 2009 - 2020 has increased from 491,348 to 607,922 (an increase of c. 24%)
Transport deaths have dropped from 2,284 to 1,516 a drop of c. 33%
but in relative terms (relative to overall deaths), transport related deaths a drop of nearly 46%
when looking at stats, they are always more complex than they seem - speed as a cause of accident is generally reckoned to be around 4-5% of accidents, however we don't know whether that is also of deaths from those accidents / generally of all accidents - I suspect that accidents with deaths will have a higher % of speed causation... so we can't factor that in per se - but even if it is all of those (which it won't be - see recent thread on someone driving the wrong way down a dual carriageway and the accident that resulted), it is a small minority of deaths in the overall stats.
Again, we don't know how many who appear in those stats might have been dying / about to die from something else - e.g. heart / cancer / etc. - some possibly, but we have to discount it. It is still a small %
As a comparison: (2011)
- 2x as many die from falls
- more die from accidental poisoning
- more die from hanging or strangulation
- 2x as many from intentional self-harm
- 2x as many from Diabetes
- 3x as many from infections
- 15x as many die from Dementia
- 77x as many die from circulatory diseases
- 10x as many from diseases of the nervous system
- 37x as many from Respiratory diseases
- 79x as many from Cancers
etc
the reality is that while every transport death is sad, statistically it is not significant
trying to graph it:
It is almost impossible to see the significance of the change in transport deaths (orange) because while overall deaths have increased gradually and with a (covid?) jump to 2020 - the transport deaths are so insignificant that they hardly show up...
what can we conclude?
- transport deaths are sad but not a particular issue
- there are many higher priorities
however...
- speed is easy to measure
- revenue generating
therefore it will continue to be measured and debated - partly as a distraction from all the other causes of death, and partly because the money is very nice thank you...
this diagram below is from 2011 - the Guardian seemed to put up the equivalent in 2009 / 2010 / 2011 not sure of current figures and too much hassle to build my own (though the government does publish figures... all figures for England & Wales) - transport figures are in red top right (bottom left of the red blobs)
figures are:
2009 - Total deaths 491,348
Transport related: 2,284 (0.46%)
2010 - Total deaths 493,242
Transport related: 1,970 (0.4%)
2011
Total deaths 484,367
Transport related 1,815 (0.37%)
transport related = occupant in car / motorcyclist / pedestrian in collision with car or van
some interesting confirmation from Brake
The number of road deaths in the UK plateaued from 2012 to 2019 at around 1,850 deaths a year, or the equivalent of five a day, on average.
In 2020, 1,516 people were killed on UK roads (0.25%)
Overall deaths from 2009 - 2020 has increased from 491,348 to 607,922 (an increase of c. 24%)
Transport deaths have dropped from 2,284 to 1,516 a drop of c. 33%
but in relative terms (relative to overall deaths), transport related deaths a drop of nearly 46%
when looking at stats, they are always more complex than they seem - speed as a cause of accident is generally reckoned to be around 4-5% of accidents, however we don't know whether that is also of deaths from those accidents / generally of all accidents - I suspect that accidents with deaths will have a higher % of speed causation... so we can't factor that in per se - but even if it is all of those (which it won't be - see recent thread on someone driving the wrong way down a dual carriageway and the accident that resulted), it is a small minority of deaths in the overall stats.
Again, we don't know how many who appear in those stats might have been dying / about to die from something else - e.g. heart / cancer / etc. - some possibly, but we have to discount it. It is still a small %
As a comparison: (2011)
- 2x as many die from falls
- more die from accidental poisoning
- more die from hanging or strangulation
- 2x as many from intentional self-harm
- 2x as many from Diabetes
- 3x as many from infections
- 15x as many die from Dementia
- 77x as many die from circulatory diseases
- 10x as many from diseases of the nervous system
- 37x as many from Respiratory diseases
- 79x as many from Cancers
etc
the reality is that while every transport death is sad, statistically it is not significant
trying to graph it:
It is almost impossible to see the significance of the change in transport deaths (orange) because while overall deaths have increased gradually and with a (covid?) jump to 2020 - the transport deaths are so insignificant that they hardly show up...
what can we conclude?
- transport deaths are sad but not a particular issue
- there are many higher priorities
however...
- speed is easy to measure
- revenue generating
therefore it will continue to be measured and debated - partly as a distraction from all the other causes of death, and partly because the money is very nice thank you...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff