Safe Speed in the Daily Mail Today

[safespeed]

There's no need to say "well done". Just send cash instead.

www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[nonegreen]

Already sent cash So, well done.

[WildCat]

Here here!

Our cheques all in post!

Well done anyway!

[lucozade]

Nice

[motorbiker]

speeding 1 in 8 crashes thats a lot of dead people
if it is 10 people a day dead in the UK.



>> Edited by motorbiker on Monday 5th April 16:14

[smashmonkey1984]

motorbiker said:

speeding 1 in 8 crashes thats a lot of dead people if it is 10 people a day dead in the UK. >> Edited by motorbiker on Monday 5th April 16:14

What about the other 7? don't they deserve life too?
Get stupid, drunk, drugged up, careless twats off our roads and we'll all be better of.

[safespeed]

motorbiker said:

speeding 1 in 8 crashes thats a lot of dead people if it is 10 people a day dead in the UK.

Yes it would be, except that's by no means the story in the figures. See this text from a further PR I sent out yesterday evening:

==========================================
News: for immediate release

LOOKING INSIDE THE 12.5%

Safe Speed recently highlighted that "excessive speed" was only the 7th most common factor in a study of road accident causation recently published by the Department for Transport. Just 12.5% of all road accidents had "excessive speed listed as one of the contributory factors.

But this is not the whole story. Within the 12.5% of "excessive speed" accidents we estimate that only about 30% involve exceeding the speed limit (based on the only UK data available, from Avon and Somerset Police).

The 12.5% also includes excessive speed factors classed as "definite, probable, possible and not-recorded."

And the 12.5% even includes accidents where "excessive speed" was a minor contributory factor.

So if we have a drunk driver skidding on ice at 20mph, that may well have been coded as an excessive speed accident.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed Road Safety Campaign said: "It's high time that the DfT came clean and published this vital road safety data in full. They have been gathering it since 1997 and we have been requesting it for over a year with no joy. Now that we have finally seen a small portion of it, it is crystal clear that the data does not support the modern policy emphasis on speed limit enforcement."

Safe Speed demands the immediate release of the rest of the data gathered since 1997, with full details including "factor groupings" and "confidence" data.

Paul continues: "This is the way we see it. We start with 12.5% of accidents where "excessive speed is listed as a contributory factor. Then we look at 30% of those that actually involved exceeding a speed limit - that gives us 3.75%. Then we look inside that 3.75 percent and eliminate those accidents within the "possible" category where speed wasn't likely to have been a factor at all. That get's us to about 3%. Then we look inside the 3% and eliminate those circumstances where the excessive speed and the accident both had a common cause (for example a drunk or drugged driver, a reckless driver, drivers racing or criminals escaping the scene of a crime). That's very like half of the remainder gone. We are left with about 1.5% of accidents that MIGHT have been caused by a normal motorist exceeding a speed limit. But even in this 1.5% the primary cause of the accident may not have been excessive speed. Many of them were probably inattention exacerbated by excessive speed. Finally we should look at the potential effectiveness of the speed enforcement. We know that enforcement by speed camera isn't very effective because they plan to issue more tickets every year and because speeding behaviour has not changed significantly in the last 5 years according to the DfT's own figures.

Paul continues: "The bottom line is that we have a vanishingly small proportion of accidents where the results are contributed to by normal drivers exceeding a speed limit. No wonder we're not seeing the national figures go down in the speed camera era!"

Paul continues: "Speed camera policy is a farce based on incomplete data, false assumptions and oversimplified thinking. Camera operations must stop now, and we must return immediately to the excellent policies that gave us the safest roads in the world in the first place."

<ends>
===========================================

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[Dimmadan]

with the Freedom of information Act due to come in on 1st Jan 2005 this information may well become available much easier.

I know certain camera partnerships are gearing up for it.

[kurgis]

Yes FoA is going to make life very interesting for the Partnerships - everybody get read up on it - I know exactly what info I can and can not release (i.e. what would be covered by the Data Protection Act rather than FoA - personnal details etc) but the rest is fair game....

Good work Paul - but we knew this was coming, from my end at least There was no way on earth they could of substantiated that crap about 33% - all because a few politicians and journos mis-read a report..

Hats off to you mate.

[safespeed]

kurgis said:

Good work Paul - but we knew this was coming, from my end at least

I've been trying to pry the data out of the DfT with a crowbar for about a year. I'd guesed the content of course.

But what did you know? I'm intrigued. Email me if you like.

Thanks for the compliments.

[kurgis]

Well any major report that DfT are doing should be released to the public - but I had a chat with a couple of the RSO's who were working with the Police forces on sorting out the causation factors and everybody agreed there needed to be major changes. Long and short though, is that the year you've been trying to get the info, they've still been discussing (i.e. shouting at each other around a table ) about the best way to do things - the pace of government i'm afraid - due process.

Everybody with an eyeball or who works on frontline Road Safety (that includes most drivers btw - daily) knows 33% of accidents weren't caused by "excessive speed" or however you want to define it - but I can't but help feel (my own personal belief) that when TRL's first report came out, a minister at the time thought "gold dust - here's an easy way to hit our targets" and guess what? The report only talked about speeding on a minute section of the highway - under certain circumstances.....

I know speed cameras (sorry safety cameras ) were out and about before that report - but to simply think they were going to solve 33% of all accidents was at best a major over simplification of what road safety is about (hello driver awareness, hello non stupid pedestrians for example, hello segregated landuse etc etc) and at worst - a major travesty of not only justice, but social and economic implications.

Road Safety has never been an easy subject, just because it touches on so many boundaries: schools, health services, emergency services, council and planning services to name a few off the top of my head.

Message in your PH in tray Paul

Lets hope this is the start of something new - a return to intelligence led road safety initiatives - and a WildCat designed hard hitting advert of course

[nick_f]

safespeed said:

motorbiker said: speeding 1 in 8 crashes thats a lot of dead people if it is 10 people a day dead in the UK. Yes it would be, except that's by no means the story in the figures. See this text from a further PR I sent out yesterday evening: ========================================== News: for immediate release LOOKING INSIDE THE 12.5% Safe Speed recently highlighted that "excessive speed" was only the 7th most common factor in a study of road accident causation recently published by the Department for Transport. Just 12.5% of all road accidents had "excessive speed listed as one of the contributory factors. But this is not the whole story. Within the 12.5% of "excessive speed" accidents we estimate that only about 30% involve exceeding the speed limit (based on the only UK data available, from Avon and Somerset Police). The 12.5% also includes excessive speed factors classed as "definite, probable, possible and not-recorded." And the 12.5% even includes accidents where "excessive speed" was a minor contributory factor. So if we have a drunk driver skidding on ice at 20mph, that may well have been coded as an excessive speed accident. Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed Road Safety Campaign said: "It's high time that the DfT came clean and published this vital road safety data in full. They have been gathering it since 1997 and we have been requesting it for over a year with no joy. Now that we have finally seen a small portion of it, it is crystal clear that the data does not support the modern policy emphasis on speed limit enforcement." Safe Speed demands the immediate release of the rest of the data gathered since 1997, with full details including "factor groupings" and "confidence" data. Paul continues: "This is the way we see it. We start with 12.5% of accidents where "excessive speed is listed as a contributory factor. Then we look at 30% of those that actually involved exceeding a speed limit - that gives us 3.75%. Then we look inside that 3.75 percent and eliminate those accidents within the "possible" category where speed wasn't likely to have been a factor at all. That get's us to about 3%. Then we look inside the 3% and eliminate those circumstances where the excessive speed and the accident both had a common cause (for example a drunk or drugged driver, a reckless driver, drivers racing or criminals escaping the scene of a crime). That's very like half of the remainder gone. We are left with about 1.5% of accidents that MIGHT have been caused by a normal motorist exceeding a speed limit. But even in this 1.5% the primary cause of the accident may not have been excessive speed. Many of them were probably inattention exacerbated by excessive speed. Finally we should look at the potential effectiveness of the speed enforcement. We know that enforcement by speed camera isn't very effective because they plan to issue more tickets every year and because speeding behaviour has not changed significantly in the last 5 years according to the DfT's own figures. Paul continues: "The bottom line is that we have a vanishingly small proportion of accidents where the results are contributed to by normal drivers exceeding a speed limit. No wonder we're not seeing the national figures go down in the speed camera era!" Paul continues: "Speed camera policy is a farce based on incomplete data, false assumptions and oversimplified thinking. Camera operations must stop now, and we must return immediately to the excellent policies that gave us the safest roads in the world in the first place." <ends> =========================================== Best Regards, Paul Smith Safe Speed www.safespeed.org.uk

So how do the figues map onto fatalities, as opposed to 'accidents'? Is it the same pro rata, or are fatalities more speed-dependant?

[safespeed]

nick_f said:

So how do the figues map onto fatalities, as opposed to 'accidents'? Is it the same pro rata, or are fatalities more speed-dependant?

We can be quite sure that excessive speed accidents represent a higher proportion in higher severity accidents. But strangely enough, this turns out to be a major problem for the camera proponents. See this page:

www.safespeed.org.uk/problem.html

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[Buzzinhornet]

Having read another DfT report, they claim that the 12.5% figure is being misquoted. However, I would argue that there is no such offence as 'excessive speed'. You can drive at whatever speed you like, but you are only a danger if you drive at an 'inappropriate' speed for the conditions present at the time, Any idiot can tell us that speed will be a factor in the severity of the accident, but as speed can't actually be the cause of an accident (if it were we would all be dead by now) I really don't understand why we insist on fixing limits outside of urban areas.

60mph is just a number. I can be more dangerous travelling under 60 in a 60 than I am travelling above 60 in a 60.

For as long as we perpetuate the myth that it is speeding that causes accidents, we will continue to fail to educate drivers as to how to drive with due care and attention and appropriately for the conditions they find themselves in.

[safespeed]

Buzzinhornet said:

Having read another DfT report, they claim that the 12.5% figure is being misquoted.

What report is that then? Where can I read it?

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk