Speeding causes 3x as many deaths as previously thought...
Discussion
Mmmmm.
Just about to introduce the mandated speed limiters on new cars.
Pushback from motoring organizations and a couple of MP's.
Now introduce some statistics and parry with "But look how many lives the speed limiters will save"
All a bit obvious for us cynics.
"Statistics can prove anything, sometimes even the truth"
Attributed to Voltaire.
Just about to introduce the mandated speed limiters on new cars.
Pushback from motoring organizations and a couple of MP's.
Now introduce some statistics and parry with "But look how many lives the speed limiters will save"
All a bit obvious for us cynics.
"Statistics can prove anything, sometimes even the truth"
Attributed to Voltaire.
vonhosen said:
gottans said:
As they say..
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
For fatalities it will be as a result of very detailed investigations.Lies, damn lies and statistics.
If multiple drivers manage to make the same manouvre successfully but one doesn't when driven under the same conditions, only the unsuccessful driver gets investigated and potentially identified as going too fast for the conditions. In reality it is driver ability/vehicle condition that is the cause not speeding but it looks like speeding as the incident is assessed in isolation.
As I said lies, damn lies and statistics. I am not saying the approach is wrong but at the very least the limitations of the methods used need to be stated and caveated. Doubt it will be as it doesn't fit in with the general anti-speed agenda.
gottans said:
vonhosen said:
gottans said:
As they say..
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
For fatalities it will be as a result of very detailed investigations.Lies, damn lies and statistics.
If multiple drivers manage to make the same manouvre successfully but one doesn't when driven under the same conditions, only the unsuccessful driver gets investigated and potentially identified as going too fast for the conditions. In reality it is driver ability/vehicle condition that is the cause not speeding but it looks like speeding as the incident is assessed in isolation.
As I said lies, damn lies and statistics. I am not saying the approach is wrong but at the very least the limitations of the methods used need to be stated and caveated. Doubt it will be as it doesn't fit in with the general anti-speed agenda.
They are investigating the cause of the accident, not driving in non accidents.
So it will include whether the individual driver's choice of speed at the time (as well as any other factors) was a contributory factor in the collision happening.
We should always be driving so that we can stop in the distance we can see to be clear (& reasonably expect to remain so) on our side of the road.
Road, weather, vehicle, our alertness etc are what we should also be considering when we manage that with our choice of speed. Where there is evidence that we haven't managed that it should rightly be recorded as including excessive speed for the circumstances as a contributory factor in the collision happening.
As an aside, people can of course be found guilty of excessive speed for the circumstances (through s2 or s3 RTA 1988) in the absence of a collision.
Super Sonic said:
Surely most collisions are caused by excessive speed. This a completely different thing to exceeding the speed limit however.
Doesnt that depend on the circumstances. I drive round a corner at 60mph leave the road hit a tree and kill myself. Is it excessive speed or is it me driving beyond my ability or the ability of my car? What if 99.9% of traffic goes round that corner at 60mph and its only me that crashes?Super Sonic said:
Surely most collisions are caused by excessive speed. This a completely different thing to exceeding the speed limit however.
Well under the old STATS19 excessive speed for the circumstances was a contributory factor in 9% of fatality collisions.It appears that the proposed change is that the point at which that is recorded is at a later date, when the investigation is completed, rather than at the scene. That seems a sensible decision, if we want a more accurate assessment of how contributory factors actually play a part (& that's for all contributory factors not just speed).
It seems that the early evidence (using the more thorough investigative process) suggests the percentage of accidents with excessive speed/speeding as a contributory factor are much higher than was attributed under the old (less thorough) process. But even then it isn't anywhere close to the 100% some are claiming here.
vonhosen said:
gottans said:
vonhosen said:
gottans said:
As they say..
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
For fatalities it will be as a result of very detailed investigations.Lies, damn lies and statistics.
If multiple drivers manage to make the same manouvre successfully but one doesn't when driven under the same conditions, only the unsuccessful driver gets investigated and potentially identified as going too fast for the conditions. In reality it is driver ability/vehicle condition that is the cause not speeding but it looks like speeding as the incident is assessed in isolation.
As I said lies, damn lies and statistics. I am not saying the approach is wrong but at the very least the limitations of the methods used need to be stated and caveated. Doubt it will be as it doesn't fit in with the general anti-speed agenda.
They are investigating the cause of the accident, not driving in non accidents.
So it will include whether the individual driver's choice of speed at the time (as well as any other factors) was a contributory factor in the collision happening.
We should always be driving so that we can stop in the distance we can see to be clear (& reasonably expect to remain so) on our side of the road.
Road, weather, vehicle, our alertness etc are what we should also be considering when we manage that with our choice of speed. Where there is evidence that we haven't managed that it should rightly be recorded as including excessive speed for the circumstances as a contributory factor in the collision happening.
As an aside, people can of course be found guilty of excessive speed for the circumstances (through s2 or s3 RTA 1988) in the absence of a collision.
Is driver ability taken into account during the RTA investigation?
gottans said:
vonhosen said:
gottans said:
vonhosen said:
gottans said:
As they say..
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
For fatalities it will be as a result of very detailed investigations.Lies, damn lies and statistics.
If multiple drivers manage to make the same manouvre successfully but one doesn't when driven under the same conditions, only the unsuccessful driver gets investigated and potentially identified as going too fast for the conditions. In reality it is driver ability/vehicle condition that is the cause not speeding but it looks like speeding as the incident is assessed in isolation.
As I said lies, damn lies and statistics. I am not saying the approach is wrong but at the very least the limitations of the methods used need to be stated and caveated. Doubt it will be as it doesn't fit in with the general anti-speed agenda.
They are investigating the cause of the accident, not driving in non accidents.
So it will include whether the individual driver's choice of speed at the time (as well as any other factors) was a contributory factor in the collision happening.
We should always be driving so that we can stop in the distance we can see to be clear (& reasonably expect to remain so) on our side of the road.
Road, weather, vehicle, our alertness etc are what we should also be considering when we manage that with our choice of speed. Where there is evidence that we haven't managed that it should rightly be recorded as including excessive speed for the circumstances as a contributory factor in the collision happening.
As an aside, people can of course be found guilty of excessive speed for the circumstances (through s2 or s3 RTA 1988) in the absence of a collision.
Is driver ability taken into account during the RTA investigation?
Then there is a good chance you were demonstrably driving too fast for the conditions, irrespective of how good one might think they are.
It would be a failure in respect of the most basic tenant of safe driving.
heebeegeetee said:
It seems.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8959cbb4-d3a3-1...
https://twitter.com/AndyCoxDCS/status/152575131436...
That tweet reads: Below is a major change that will have an impact far beyond police investigations. Speeding is the major contributory factor in fatal crashes. We must end speeding drivers complacency and make them all realise the consequences of speeding can happen to them.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8959cbb4-d3a3-1...
https://twitter.com/AndyCoxDCS/status/152575131436...
The greater the speed going into a crash, the more severe the outcome. I doubt many people would argue against that.
But that isn’t the same as saying that greater speed is a cause of crashes. If that were true there would be many many more crashes per mile on our motorways than on our urban residential roads.
Of course, excessive speed for the conditions may often be a contributing factor to a crash, but assessing how great a factor it is (5%? 40%? 90%) is an inexact science, and more a question of judgement where two people could easily have conflicting views both of which fall within a range of reasonable views.
TL; DR: the war on speed continues unabated.
Super Sonic said:
Surely most collisions are caused by excessive speed. This a completely different thing to exceeding the speed limit however.
Well had you been travelling 25% slower you wouldn't have been there at the time the conditions of traffic etc., conspired to allow an accident. Equally, had you been going 25% faster you would have been past the accident site at the time. I am not being flippant, but only a single vehicle event would not be dependent on a simultaneity of several micro-events. vonhosen said:
Well under the old STATS19 excessive speed for the circumstances was a contributory factor in 9% of fatality collisions.
It appears that the proposed change is that the point at which that is recorded is at a later date, when the investigation is completed, rather than at the scene. That seems a sensible decision, if we want a more accurate assessment of how contributory factors actually play a part (& that's for all contributory factors not just speed).
It seems that the early evidence (using the more thorough investigative process) suggests the percentage of accidents with excessive speed/speeding as a contributory factor are much higher than was attributed under the old (less thorough) process. But even then it isn't anywhere close to the 100% some are claiming here.
There's a big difference between the thread title "Speeding causes..." and your "...as a contributory factor." I have considerable difficulty arguing against your statement whilst the title's claim is simplistic in the extreme.It appears that the proposed change is that the point at which that is recorded is at a later date, when the investigation is completed, rather than at the scene. That seems a sensible decision, if we want a more accurate assessment of how contributory factors actually play a part (& that's for all contributory factors not just speed).
It seems that the early evidence (using the more thorough investigative process) suggests the percentage of accidents with excessive speed/speeding as a contributory factor are much higher than was attributed under the old (less thorough) process. But even then it isn't anywhere close to the 100% some are claiming here.
vonhosen said:
motco said:
vonhosen said:
Seems a sensible move to record contributory outcomes following the full investigation rather than on the basis of what was only available initially at the scene.
Of course, but you more than most know that there's almost never a single cause. A cascade of events might result from one act of incompetence and excessive speed may be an element of that incompetence. I was almost wiped out by an Audi R8 travelling on the wrong side of two islands on a single carriageway 'A' road in a 40mph section between 50mph sections. The driver was obviously speeding but it was impatience and disregard for the rule of 'keep left' more than the speed that were the major factors. The collision, had it occurred, would have been catastrophic entirely because of the energy of a couple of tonnes travelling at a closing speed of >100mph with another two tonne hunk of metal. Luckily I was able to bring my speed down from 40 to 30 and avert the collision. I have footage complete with GPS data on disc but the police were unable to act because two weeks had passed before my video reached the correct desk.
Fixed that for you
motco said:
vonhosen said:
Well under the old STATS19 excessive speed for the circumstances was a contributory factor in 9% of fatality collisions.
It appears that the proposed change is that the point at which that is recorded is at a later date, when the investigation is completed, rather than at the scene. That seems a sensible decision, if we want a more accurate assessment of how contributory factors actually play a part (& that's for all contributory factors not just speed).
It seems that the early evidence (using the more thorough investigative process) suggests the percentage of accidents with excessive speed/speeding as a contributory factor are much higher than was attributed under the old (less thorough) process. But even then it isn't anywhere close to the 100% some are claiming here.
There's a big difference between the thread title "Speeding causes..." and your "...as a contributory factor." I have considerable difficulty arguing against your statement whilst the title's claim is simplistic in the extreme.It appears that the proposed change is that the point at which that is recorded is at a later date, when the investigation is completed, rather than at the scene. That seems a sensible decision, if we want a more accurate assessment of how contributory factors actually play a part (& that's for all contributory factors not just speed).
It seems that the early evidence (using the more thorough investigative process) suggests the percentage of accidents with excessive speed/speeding as a contributory factor are much higher than was attributed under the old (less thorough) process. But even then it isn't anywhere close to the 100% some are claiming here.
Under the old STATS19 you could attribute (up to) 6 contributory factors in any collision & rank them in order of the part they played (from a list of 78 potential contributory factors).
motco said:
There's a big difference between the thread title "Speeding causes..." and your "...as a contributory factor." I have considerable difficulty arguing against your statement whilst the title's claim is simplistic in the extreme.
The issue with blindly believing the click bait title Ops often seem to like using. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff