Speeding causes 3x as many deaths as previously thought...

[DodgyGeezer]

Chrisgr31 said:

I am sure that they want us to return to travelling by horse and cart.

I'm not convinced they want us travelling full stop - it's all about control. Governments would be far happier if the proles learned their place and didn't travel outside their designated area

[NGee]

"Speeding causes 3 times as many deaths"

What a load of bks, 'speeding' causes ALL deaths.
Of course it depends how you define speeding but it is impossible to have an accident unless at least one of the vehicles involved is moving.
You cannot have an accident at 0mph, therefore all accidents are caused by speeding

Or to put it another way, as already stated, "there are lies, damm lies and statistics".

[motco]

NDNDNDND said:

A quick google suggests that 0.97% of car crashes are fatal.

And this study shows that 'speed' (and not necessarily exceeding the posted speed limit) is a contributory factor in 64% of these crashes.

So, we're supposed to let a contributory factor in 0.62% of car crashes dictate road policing policy?

Wouldn't it be better to focus more effort on distracted driving, what with that being leading cause of crashes?

You might interpret that as being a success by the speed managers. Most drivers obey the posted limits more or less, few really take the Mickey. If it were as liberal as it was in the 1970s - or even earlier - then the annual death rate might be 5,000 as it was then. I learned to drive in a regime of 30mph in built-up areas and derestricted everywhere else. Seventy miles per hour was a pipe dream for thee quarters of the cars on the road, and tyres were crossply with no tread depth minimum, brakes were unassisted drums, and suspension owed more to dung carts than racing cars. Road surfaces had an uncannily ice-like non-grip in wet weather partly, I suspect, due to the oil splashes everywhere from the Ford Anglias, Morris Minors, and Austin Somersets. If only 0.62% of deaths are principally caused by excess speed, then the Department of Transport have done a good job, surely. Time to look elsewhere for improvement!

[vonhosen]

NDNDNDND said:

A quick google suggests that 0.97% of car crashes are fatal.

And this study shows that 'speed' (and not necessarily exceeding the posted speed limit) is a contributory factor in 64% of these crashes.

So, we're supposed to let a contributory factor in 0.62% of car crashes dictate road policing policy?

Wouldn't it be better to focus more effort on distracted driving, what with that being leading cause of crashes?

The focus is the fatal five.

1) Careless driving
2) Drink/Drugs driving
3) Mobile phones
4) No seatbelt
5) Excess speed.

[vonhosen]

NGee said:

"Speeding causes 3 times as many deaths"

What a load of bks, 'speeding' causes ALL deaths.
Of course it depends how you define speeding but it is impossible to have an accident unless at least one of the vehicles involved is moving.
You cannot have an accident at 0mph, therefore all accidents are caused by speeding

Or to put it another way, as already stated, "there are lies, damm lies and statistics".

It's 'excess' speed (in respect of the prevailing limit or circumstances) they are talking about as a contributory factor in the accident happening. Not whether there was any speed at all.

[vonhosen]

BlackWidow13 said:

vonhosen said:

i asked which will give 'more' accurate results (closer to the reality or truth of the matter)
It declared at the end of the investigative process or at an early stage in it?

It's a contributory factor in the accident happening.

You have it's presence in different severities of accidents.

You have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for conditions is a contributory factor in fatality accidents that happened.
You have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for the conditions is a contributory factor in serious injury accidents that happened.
You have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for the conditions is a contributory factor in slight injury accidents that happened.
You then have the number & percentage in which exceeding the limit/too fast for the conditions is a contributory factor across all the above severities combined.

Historically the more serious the accident class, the greater the percentage that it tends to be within that class as a contributory factor.

So the assessment is purely of the contribution that excessive speed had on the outcome of the accident, yes? Not on any contribution of excessive speed to the cause of the accident, yes?

No.

They have the different classes of accidents (by severity), but 'the measurement' is what percentage of accidents have excess speed as a contributory factor in those accident occurring in the first place.

There are generally multiple contributory factors in accidents happening, but some contributory factors are more prevalent than others.
And speed gets more prevalent, as a contributory factor in the accident occurring in the first place, with the more serious accidents are.

The measurement remains though the percentage of accidents in which excess speed is a contributory factor in the accident happening.
The increase in presence as a contributory factor in the accident happening within the more serious accidents is simply an observation from the stats analysis.

[NGee]

vonhosen said:

It's 'excess' speed (in respect of the prevailing limit or circumstances) they are talking about as a contributory factor in the accident happening. Not whether there was any speed at all.

OK, so I was being a bit facetious, but nowhere in the title of this thread thread or in the Times article linked to in the OPs post does it mention 'excess' speed.
Surely every accident is, by definition, caused by excess speed because if there wasn't excess speed (by at least one of the vehicles involved) there wouldn't have been an accident!
Therefore ALL accidents are caused by speed, call it 'excess' speed if you prefer, but it's still speed!

[vonhosen]

NGee said:

vonhosen said:

It's 'excess' speed (in respect of the prevailing limit or circumstances) they are talking about as a contributory factor in the accident happening. Not whether there was any speed at all.

OK, so I was being a bit facetious, but nowhere in the title of this thread thread or in the Times article linked to in the OPs post does it mention 'excess' speed.
Surely every accident is, by definition, caused by excess speed because if there wasn't excess speed (by at least one of the vehicles involved) there wouldn't have been an accident!
Therefore ALL accidents are caused by speed, call it 'excess' speed if you prefer, but it's still speed!

No.

The stats don't reflect that.

Excess speed can come from two different sources.

1) Exceeding the speed limit - Some accidents occur at speeds below the speed limit.
2) Excessive speed for the circumstances - Not all accidents occur at speeds where the vehicle was travelling at excessive speeds for the circumstances.

That's not changed.
What's changed is at what point the evidence is reviewed to make the determination.

When the assessment was made at the scene before a full investigation, that resulted in 15% of accidents having it as a contributory factor in the accident occurring.
When the assessment was made after the full investigation, that resulted in 64% of accidents having it as a contributory factor in the accident happening.
Clearly not all, but clearly an increase the more detailed the accident is investigated.

This was in fatality cases only & in one region only.

[Chrisgr31]

If I get in my car after drinking 6 pints and whilst exceeding the speed limit I wrap my car around a tree when I fail to navigate a corner killing myself how much did the drink contribute to the cause and how much the speed?

[vonhosen]

Chrisgr31 said:

If I get in my car after drinking 6 pints and whilst exceeding the speed limit I wrap my car around a tree when I fail to navigate a corner killing myself how much did the drink contribute to the cause and how much the speed?

Both probably contributed.
The point is, that a full investigation will be better at determining the reality/truth than a limited part investigation.

[NGee]

vonhosen said:

NGee said:

vonhosen said:

It's 'excess' speed (in respect of the prevailing limit or circumstances) they are talking about as a contributory factor in the accident happening. Not whether there was any speed at all.

OK, so I was being a bit facetious, but nowhere in the title of this thread thread or in the Times article linked to in the OPs post does it mention 'excess' speed.
Surely every accident is, by definition, caused by excess speed because if there wasn't excess speed (by at least one of the vehicles involved) there wouldn't have been an accident!
Therefore ALL accidents are caused by speed, call it 'excess' speed if you prefer, but it's still speed!

No.

The stats don't reflect that.

But I don't care about the 'stats', I am just trying to apply some common sense to the subject.

AS said earlier, there are lies, damm lies and statistics!!

[vonhosen]

NGee said:

vonhosen said:

NGee said:

vonhosen said:

It's 'excess' speed (in respect of the prevailing limit or circumstances) they are talking about as a contributory factor in the accident happening. Not whether there was any speed at all.

OK, so I was being a bit facetious, but nowhere in the title of this thread thread or in the Times article linked to in the OPs post does it mention 'excess' speed.
Surely every accident is, by definition, caused by excess speed because if there wasn't excess speed (by at least one of the vehicles involved) there wouldn't have been an accident!
Therefore ALL accidents are caused by speed, call it 'excess' speed if you prefer, but it's still speed!

No.

The stats don't reflect that.

But I don't care about the 'stats', I am just trying to apply some common sense to the subject.

AS said earlier, there are lies, damm lies and statistics!!

I prefer a bit of statistical analysis, or evidence to people just pulling something out of their

The thing with common sense is, it's not all that common, even amongst people who say they are trying to apply it.

You are attributing the issue of speed in a different way to which it is applied within the stats & complaining that you are getting a different outcome.
That's not using common sense.
They are using only 'excess speed' as a contributory factor (excess being in excess of the limit, or too fast for the circumstances), you are applying 'any speed' present when a collision occurs (effectively claiming there can never have been a reasonable speed involved when an accident occurs) as a contributory factor.
Of course your results aren't going to tally.

I don't favour an 'any speed' position, that potentially leads to no use of the utility (motor vehicles).
I'm interested in there being as accurate as possible 'excess speed' position, that still leaves room for reasonable use of the utility (motor vehicles).

[NGee]

vonhosen said:

They are using only 'excess speed' as a contributory factor, you are applying 'any speed' as a contributory factor.
Of course your results aren't going to tally.

.

Exactly - and that is my point.

A vehicle can only cause an accident if it is moving.

[JNW1]

I've only skim read the thread but, as has been pointed out already, there's a difference between something that causes an accident and something that was a contributory factor and/or made the outcome worse. Reading The Times article linked in the original post both the headline and the opening paragraph talk about speeding as a cause of more road deaths but when you read further it becomes evident the data doesn't actually show that at all - it shows speeding to be a contributory factor to more road deaths than previously thought which isn't the same thing.

So, while I don't dispute the substance of what the data reveals, IMO the sensationalist headlines and sound bites are a more than a touch misleading...

[vonhosen]

NGee said:

vonhosen said:

They are using only 'excess speed' as a contributory factor, you are applying 'any speed' as a contributory factor.
Of course your results aren't going to tally.

.

Exactly - and that is my point.

A vehicle can only cause an accident if it is moving.

But the fact it is moving when it was involved in an accident doesn't mean that the speed when the accident happened was excessive or unreasonable.
You can be behaving reasonably (in terms of speed choice) & still be involved in a collision due to other factors.

Your position is an extreme one , in respect of the use of speed & it's position as a contributory factor in the collision occurring. And the stats are far less extreme in it's view of use of speed. The stats allow for reasonable use of speed & declare that if your speed was reasonable it is not a contributory factor in the accident.

eg
You are driving along a long straight country road in good weather with a good dry road surface. It's a NSL & your speed is 50mph.
There are high hedge rows on both sides of the road & they are set back about 3m from the road. There are no junctions, entrances or breaks in the hedgerow. There is no other traffic in sight no warnings signs.

A deer jumps over the hedge & doesn't even land in the road in front of you to give you time to take evasive action. It lands on your bonnet.

Was your speed choice in the given circumstances unreasonable?
Was it excessive for the circumstances?
Was it a contributory factor in the collision?

For the stats = no.

They are attempting to identify unreasonable behaviour (in use of speed) & it's part as a contributory factor in collisions.
Not seeking to blame people who were behaving reasonably (in relation to speed) but happen to be involved in a collision. That's what your position on speed is more aligned to.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 14:42

[DodgyGeezer]

vonhosen said:

eg
You are driving along a long straight country road in good weather with a good dry road surface. It's a NSL & your speed is 50mph.
There are high hedge rows on both sides of the road & they are set back about 3m from the road. There are no junctions, entrances or breaks in the hedgerow. There is no other traffic in sight no warnings signs.

A deer jumps over the hedge & doesn't even land in the road in front of you to give you time to take evasive action. It lands on your bonnet.

Was your speed choice in the given circumstances unreasonable?
Was it excessive for the circumstances?
Was it a contributory factor in the collision?

For the stats = no.

They are attempting to identify unreasonable behaviour (in use of speed) & it's part as a contributory factor in collisions.
Not seeking to blame people who were behaving reasonably (in relation to speed) but happen to be involved in a collision. That's what your position on speed is more aligned to.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 14:42

and yet if you were doing 70 and everything else was exactly the same speed would be down as a factor.....

[vonhosen]

DodgyGeezer said:

vonhosen said:

eg
You are driving along a long straight country road in good weather with a good dry road surface. It's a NSL & your speed is 50mph.
There are high hedge rows on both sides of the road & they are set back about 3m from the road. There are no junctions, entrances or breaks in the hedgerow. There is no other traffic in sight no warnings signs.

A deer jumps over the hedge & doesn't even land in the road in front of you to give you time to take evasive action. It lands on your bonnet.

Was your speed choice in the given circumstances unreasonable?
Was it excessive for the circumstances?
Was it a contributory factor in the collision?

For the stats = no.

They are attempting to identify unreasonable behaviour (in use of speed) & it's part as a contributory factor in collisions.
Not seeking to blame people who were behaving reasonably (in relation to speed) but happen to be involved in a collision. That's what your position on speed is more aligned to.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 14:42

and yet if you were doing 70 and everything else was exactly the same speed would be down as a factor.....

Because I would have been behaving unreasonably (as defined) at the time. I was doing something I shouldn't have been doing on a public road.
That's a preferable, palatable, considered & more reasonable position for me than simply all speed is a contributory factor.
I can accept a reasoned argument or need for speed limits as a risk control measure & don't consider them an unreasonable imposition per se with all things considered.
And I can accept that higher speeds do increase risk, particularly in severity of outcome.
Doesn't mean I never exceed them, but I accept the potential sanctions that exist for me doing so etc.
That's because it's a broad approach societal consideration in their existence or imposition. I can't expect it to be what I alone want & bugger what the rest of society wants. Even if I view our government(s) with contempt at times, I respect the democratic process of government & their ability as elected people to impose legislation that we are held accountable to as well as our freedom to campaign for or against legislative impositions &/or hold those who introduce them to account.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 15:57

[heebeegeetee]

DodgyGeezer said:

and yet if you were doing 70 and everything else was exactly the same speed would be down as a factor.....

Down as a factor in your death or more severe injury than you have suffered if doing 50?

[NDNDNDND]

vonhosen said:

I can accept a reasoned argument or need for speed limits as a risk control measure & don't consider them an unreasonable imposition per se with all things considered.
And I can accept that higher speeds do increase risk, particularly in severity of outcome.
Doesn't mean I never exceed them, but I accept the potential sanctions that exist for me doing so etc.
That's because it's a broad approach societal consideration in their existence or imposition. I can't expect it to be what I alone want & bugger what the rest of society wants. Even if I view our government(s) with contempt at times, I respect the democratic process of government & their ability as elected people to impose legislation that we are held accountable to as well as our freedom to campaign for or against legislative impositions &/or hold those who introduce them to account.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 15:57

There's nothing wrong with speed limits, provided they are appropriate and the punishment for exceeding them is proportionate.

My concern with the police publicising rather skewed data like this is it will be used to justify inappropriately low speed limits and draconian, disproportionate punishments.

The problem with the proliferation of inappropriately low speed limits and draconian punishment is that they reduce respect for speed limits where they are important, and foster contempt for those that police the limits. Furthermore, inappropriately low speed limits will lead to the increase of a more dangerous driving behaviour - distracted driving.

Perhaps the future will be a higher number of lower-speed crashes. Is that better?

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

DodgyGeezer said:

vonhosen said:

eg
You are driving along a long straight country road in good weather with a good dry road surface. It's a NSL & your speed is 50mph.
There are high hedge rows on both sides of the road & they are set back about 3m from the road. There are no junctions, entrances or breaks in the hedgerow. There is no other traffic in sight no warnings signs.

A deer jumps over the hedge & doesn't even land in the road in front of you to give you time to take evasive action. It lands on your bonnet.

Was your speed choice in the given circumstances unreasonable?
Was it excessive for the circumstances?
Was it a contributory factor in the collision?

For the stats = no.

They are attempting to identify unreasonable behaviour (in use of speed) & it's part as a contributory factor in collisions.
Not seeking to blame people who were behaving reasonably (in relation to speed) but happen to be involved in a collision. That's what your position on speed is more aligned to.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 14:42

and yet if you were doing 70 and everything else was exactly the same speed would be down as a factor.....

Because I would have been behaving unreasonably (as defined) at the time. I was doing something I shouldn't have been doing on a public road.
That's a preferable, palatable, considered & more reasonable position for me than simply all speed is a contributory factor.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 16th May 15:57

No.

In your deer example, driving at 50 is, as you say, not a contributing factor to the accident, any more that it would have been had you been going at 35.

Drive at 70, and although you may be acting unreasonably by exceeding the speed limit, your speed is no more of a contributing factor to the accident than it was when you were driving at 50.

In just the same way as driving with a broken headlight, no MOT, or with your seatbelt would be a contributing factor to the accident.

Some of those factors (eg 70 mph, no seatbelt), might contribute to the severity of the outcome, but none of them contribute to the accident occurring in the first place.

This is why it’s important to differentiate between speed, above or below the limit or above or below what’s appropriate in the circs, as a causal contributor to the accident as opposed to a causal contributor to the severity of the outcome.

Bottom line is that unless you’re prepared to accept that the investigators have zero agenda, these types of investigative assessments are a way to write one’s own supporting evidence.