Speed 'not main road killer'
Discussion
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/01/nspeed01.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/01/ixhome.html
Speed 'not main road killer'
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 01/10/2004)
Speeding is not the main factor in more than 80 per cent of fatal and serious road accidents, according to Department for Transport research published yesterday.
The study, based on analysis of 36,000 crashes over four years, found "loss of control of vehicle" was the key element in 43 per cent of accidents, the biggest single cause.
Excessive speed was involved in two fifths of loss-of-control incidents, suggesting that it could have been the prime reason in no more than 18 per cent of all crashes causing death or serious injury.
The research called into question the dominance of anti-speed measures such as cameras and road humps in recent road safety policy. Speed cameras have increased five-fold since 1999 and generate an annual fines surplus for the Treasury of up to £20 million.
The study was published as the Government released figures showing that, despite the investment in cameras, road deaths rose by two per cent last year to 3,508, the highest level for six years.
After loss of control, the most common prime cause of fatal or serious injury accidents was pedestrians "entering the carriageway without due care". This was followed by drivers "failing to avoid vehicle or object", failing to give way or executing a poor turn or manoeuvre.
Excessive speed was cited in 28 per cent of fatal crashes and 18 per cent of those resulting in serious injury.
Impairment through alcohol was the eighth most frequently reported contributory factor. Drink-drive deaths rose two per cent to 560 last year, about a seventh of the total.
The RAC Foundation urged ministers to adopt a more varied approach to road safety.
"The increasing focus on speed cameras and decline in traffic police means that offences such as drug driving and careless driving could be going unchecked," said Edmund King, the foundation's executive director.
"We should have more traffic police and introduce national speed awareness courses as a means of changing driver behaviour."
Speed 'not main road killer'
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 01/10/2004)
Speeding is not the main factor in more than 80 per cent of fatal and serious road accidents, according to Department for Transport research published yesterday.
The study, based on analysis of 36,000 crashes over four years, found "loss of control of vehicle" was the key element in 43 per cent of accidents, the biggest single cause.
Excessive speed was involved in two fifths of loss-of-control incidents, suggesting that it could have been the prime reason in no more than 18 per cent of all crashes causing death or serious injury.
The research called into question the dominance of anti-speed measures such as cameras and road humps in recent road safety policy. Speed cameras have increased five-fold since 1999 and generate an annual fines surplus for the Treasury of up to £20 million.
The study was published as the Government released figures showing that, despite the investment in cameras, road deaths rose by two per cent last year to 3,508, the highest level for six years.
After loss of control, the most common prime cause of fatal or serious injury accidents was pedestrians "entering the carriageway without due care". This was followed by drivers "failing to avoid vehicle or object", failing to give way or executing a poor turn or manoeuvre.
Excessive speed was cited in 28 per cent of fatal crashes and 18 per cent of those resulting in serious injury.
Impairment through alcohol was the eighth most frequently reported contributory factor. Drink-drive deaths rose two per cent to 560 last year, about a seventh of the total.
The RAC Foundation urged ministers to adopt a more varied approach to road safety.
"The increasing focus on speed cameras and decline in traffic police means that offences such as drug driving and careless driving could be going unchecked," said Edmund King, the foundation's executive director.
"We should have more traffic police and introduce national speed awareness courses as a means of changing driver behaviour."
Streetcop said:
But speed increases the chances of being killed or seriously injured......
I'm not saying what's right or wrong..but stating the obvious.....
Obvious?
So 69mph past a school at 8:45am is safer than 70mph on a deserted motorway at dawn?
Don't you think the conditions might have something to do with it?
Speed in relation to the speed limit has no general effect on risk.
Speed in relation to the immediate conditions has a large effect on risk.
Streetcop said:
what I'm saying is...the faster one goes the less time one has to react and if it goes all wrong, the more damage one causes...
It is COAST! You can handle speed if you apply this - especially the C and O and A bits.....
Which is why we should be focusing on the driver training, and targetting the ones who need to go on "DIS" by having traffic police and not scamerati. As for speed - you should try the bobsleigh
That is speed und reacting fast to danger. Und ski down hill fast slalom at Santis and Winterthur or go to St Anton Und speed skating ..... You still find you apply COAST!
But - have to say it - Lancs has more speed cams than they know what to do with. People comply mit limit.
But they do not comply mit COAST or HC 124/125 - tailgating, boxing in, no indicators, oblivion to other road users, poor use of headlights, Handy use, faffing around mit cans of drink, McCr@
numptyfood whilst driving.....but they all notice the scam and even when complying mit speed limit - Pavlov dog hitting of brakes to well below speed limit. Und they are NOT better NOR SAFER drivers because of this and the statistc prove this.
We want MORE DIBBLES THERE to give acid lecture mit sternest voice and look und without humiliating peoples!
Streetcop said:
what I'm saying is...the faster one goes the less time one has to react and if it goes all wrong, the more damage one causes...
There's no meaningful truth in that statement either.
Time to react is routinely delivered out of observation, anticipation and planning.
If "time to react" in an emergency is insufficient, then the usual safety systems have already failed and luck will play a large part in the outcome.
More on time to react:
www.safespeed.org.uk/timetoreact.html
Ask yourself this.
How often do you see a vehicle driving at such a speed that you believe a collision will be likely?
In my opinion I see this very rarely. More often than not the collision happens where the driver is in the driving seat of a car travelling at the same speed as everyone else around him. In other words, the numpty that crashed crashed cos they were a tosser.
I drive 40k miles annual. The hazards I have to avoid are invariably caused by these actions
Entering or exiting slip roads at too low speeds
Being in the wrong lane usually in a car ending in "O" often displaying signs of having no knowlege of how they got there or what the big round thing in front of them is for.
Urban dithering where the person in the driving seat is actually looking for an address however the vehicle is now a slow moving hazard
Irresponsible parenting where little persons with less than 3 years walking experience are treating urban clearways as playstreets often while so called parent woffles about emmacorryeastcrap to her mate while grinning innanely, or chav father used kids buggy to push crate of beer he just bought with the child allowance he has beaten out of the childs mother.
The utter surprise when those light thingies at the junction wassaname change colour. It begs the question which is quicker? The speed of the drivers brain or car ferries parking?
Forgetting about the big round thing in front and doing something else entirely like being on the phone, sorting out the CD or bollocking the kids.
This is genuinely the set of circumstances I see as presenting the real problems to road users. Speed is irrelavent as even with maximum spin they can only get 8% of total where speed is actually the cause. Bearing in mind the evil little shit David Begg is involved I would be surprised if the real figure was any more than 1%, unfortunately all the stats are fiddled and compiled by the civil service anyway so we may never really know.
I have applied 2 of my less able brain cells to the problem for a couple of millseconds and conclude this though
It might be a good idea to start teaching people that humans are actually quite squishy, together with a thorough understanding of Newtons laws of motion.
Any other approach, like getting stoned and coming up with a new agenda for public transport is a poor substitute.
How often do you see a vehicle driving at such a speed that you believe a collision will be likely?
In my opinion I see this very rarely. More often than not the collision happens where the driver is in the driving seat of a car travelling at the same speed as everyone else around him. In other words, the numpty that crashed crashed cos they were a tosser.
I drive 40k miles annual. The hazards I have to avoid are invariably caused by these actions
Entering or exiting slip roads at too low speeds
Being in the wrong lane usually in a car ending in "O" often displaying signs of having no knowlege of how they got there or what the big round thing in front of them is for.
Urban dithering where the person in the driving seat is actually looking for an address however the vehicle is now a slow moving hazard
Irresponsible parenting where little persons with less than 3 years walking experience are treating urban clearways as playstreets often while so called parent woffles about emmacorryeastcrap to her mate while grinning innanely, or chav father used kids buggy to push crate of beer he just bought with the child allowance he has beaten out of the childs mother.
The utter surprise when those light thingies at the junction wassaname change colour. It begs the question which is quicker? The speed of the drivers brain or car ferries parking?
Forgetting about the big round thing in front and doing something else entirely like being on the phone, sorting out the CD or bollocking the kids.
This is genuinely the set of circumstances I see as presenting the real problems to road users. Speed is irrelavent as even with maximum spin they can only get 8% of total where speed is actually the cause. Bearing in mind the evil little shit David Begg is involved I would be surprised if the real figure was any more than 1%, unfortunately all the stats are fiddled and compiled by the civil service anyway so we may never really know.
I have applied 2 of my less able brain cells to the problem for a couple of millseconds and conclude this though
It might be a good idea to start teaching people that humans are actually quite squishy, together with a thorough understanding of Newtons laws of motion.
Any other approach, like getting stoned and coming up with a new agenda for public transport is a poor substitute.
Lets face it, this debate will never be concluded to everybody’s satisfaction.
I personally think that inappropriate speed for conditions is dangerous. Paul Smith is correct when he says that it is the conditions that make speed 'in'appropriate.
The fact of the matter is that the speed limits are in place on each road for the lowest common denominator. This could be schools, junctions, urban or rural areas. They also have to consider every person that will drive down the road.
An ADI driver in a new vehicle will have more ability to control his/her vehicle at a higher speed than a 17 year old driver in a mark 1 Fiesta, however, the speed limit has to be set with the 17 year old in mind.
The idea of speed limits is to give everybody a maximum speed for any road. This doesn’t ensure a safe speed as each driver has to access the environment conditions and make their own assessment.
Speed is a factor in every collision. If the speed of all vehicles involved was zero then no collisions would occur. As you increase the speed of a vehicle the risk also increases, giving the drivers and other road users less time to react.
I would rather a vehicle travel towards me at 10mph than 70mph.
You can blame road furniture, road designs, weather conditions, children, cyclists or other drivers as much as you like but in each and every situation if the speed was slower (or zero) a collision COULD be avoided.
Every single collision I have attended could have been avoided. It’s not always the drivers fault, a drunken pedestrian walking out in front of a car etc. but if the driver was doing 20mph not 30mph he could have stopped in time.
I’m not suggesting that everybody drives at 10mph. Common sense has to play a part.
I know people are getting annoyed and frustrated at the mass increase in speed cameras, myself included. But I don’t have any points on my licence and have never been flashed by a camera. Why? Because I drive and ride to appropriate speeds at all times.
In all cases where a driver has lost control by travelling too fast they say (if they are still alive) “I’m a good driver, It was the weather, the bend was too tight, I didn’t see the other car or pedestrian, I just lost control for no reason”.
Very few people admit that their driving was below standard.
I know that some of you will cut and paste selections of this text and put your own slant on it, that’s fine. Just take it in the context of the whole message.
safespeed said:
So 69mph past a school at 8:45am is safer than 70mph on a deserted motorway at dawn?
Depends on who you are applying the safer bit to.
If either driver happens to lose control and hit a stationary object, then the result will lead to probable serious injury or even death depending on at what point the impact occurs.
It is obviously more dangerous to others to do so outside a school at 0845 beacsue the overall probability factor increases because of the movement of high volumes of pedestrians.
70mph in either environment has the possibility of causing death or injury to the driver or others if something goes wrong.
safespeed said:
Don't you think the conditions might have something to do with it?
If you hit something large and stationary when travelling at high speed, you will have a problem. There are large stationary objects in all environments and conditions, even motorways have them!
safespeed said:
Speed in relation to the speed limit has no general effect on risk.
But it does. The speed limit is set because of the information available to road planners who predict the risk in that environment.
safespeed said:
Speed in relation to the immediate conditions has a large effect on risk.
I agree that you are less likely to have an accident at 70mph on a deserted motorway than you are outside a school at 0845 a.m. but if you do have one, the risks are exactly the same!
So you are talking about probability and not risk!
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 2nd October 11:13
Streetcop said:
Speed limits will never go away...
Debate is worthless
We don't need speed limits to go away. We just need proper road safety policies that take proper account of the true facts. That'll lead to sensible policing and few (if any) speed cameras.
It isn't a lot to ask - and it's no more than we are entitled to.
The competent and careful actions of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered legal.
gone said:Once upon a time - if ever. Nowadays speed limits are set by politicians or their flunkies, plus local councillors, taking part in a political correctness competition called 'How Low Can You Go'. Safety criteria are nowhere except out the window, the aims are to make travel by car as unpleasant as possible to get us all 'modal shifting' to right-on collective transport comrade, and to make it impossible to stick to the absurd limits so that maximum revenue is generated from speeding fines. Wer ya bin?
The speed limit is set because of the information available to road planners who predict the risk in that environment.
gone said:
I agree that you are less likely to have an accident at 70mph on a deserted motorway than you are outside a school at 0845 a.m. but if you do have one, the risks are exactly the same!
So you are talking about probability and not risk!
"Risk" in these contexts is clearly a product of the liklihood and the severity of the outcome, so you're in error on that point.
For example, overall road risk is usually expressed in terms of deaths per billion vehicle kilometres.
Seeing as the rest of your comments stem from the same error, I don't suppose I need to comment.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff