New speeding fines announced
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
Munter said:
Just because speeding didn't cause the accident. Doesn't mean it didn't cause the fatality.
A suspension failure could be the cause of the accident of a car doing 60 in a 30 on a clear dry straight road at 10:00 in July. A speed and conditions that the car would be expected to cope with without any problem. Unfortunately the car hit's a tree on the edge of the pavement, and the passenger is killed. Now the cause of the collision is 100% the suspension failure, and even at 30 it's felt the car would have veered off and collided with the tree.
Cause of the collision/accident. Mechanical failure.
Likely cause of the fatality. Speed.
But the DFT stats quote multiple contributory factors when they apply to an accident - not just a single main 'cause'. A suspension failure could be the cause of the accident of a car doing 60 in a 30 on a clear dry straight road at 10:00 in July. A speed and conditions that the car would be expected to cope with without any problem. Unfortunately the car hit's a tree on the edge of the pavement, and the passenger is killed. Now the cause of the collision is 100% the suspension failure, and even at 30 it's felt the car would have veered off and collided with the tree.
Cause of the collision/accident. Mechanical failure.
Likely cause of the fatality. Speed.
In your scenario - both the suspension failure and exceeding the speed limit would be put down as contributory factors in the fatal accident.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 25th January 13:30
If speed is included as a cause/"contributory factor" by default, if a speed limit was being exceeded (I don't see anybody saying that's the case), then the stat would be useless to either side to bring up in any argument to support any position. It would be meaningless. We wouldn't know if speeding was a cause or incidental in any of the cases. It's just be entirely pointless to have anybody record it. You have to be able to die, while travelling above the limit, for reasons not including travelling above the limit, to make the statistic mean anything. As you decided to use that statistic. I'd think you want to say it has some value. But from what you are saying, you're suggesting it doesn't.
Munter said:
Based on what? The cause of the accident isn't speed.
The DFT statistics don't quote a single root cause of an accident - they record the contributory factors to it.In your scenario - both the suspension failure and the speed (exceeding the speed limit in this case) are contributory factors.
The suspension failure initiated the accident, the speed upon impact caused the death - hence both factors contributed to the accident being a fatal one and would be recorded as such. That's why a lot of the percentages quoted add up to more than 100% - because many accidents have multiple contributing factors (it even states as much in the DFT report)
Moonhawk said:
Munter said:
Based on what? The cause of the accident isn't speed.
The DFT statistics don't quote a single root cause of an accident - they record the contributory factors to it.In your scenario - both the suspension failure and the speed (exceeding the speed limit in this case) are contributory factors.
The suspension failure initiated the accident, the speed upon impact caused the death - hence both factors contributed to the accident being a fatal one and would be recorded as such. That's why a lot of the percentages quoted add up to more than 100% - because many accidents have multiple contributing factors (it even states as much in the DFT report)
Until you can find what I can't. My point still stands. You have to be able to be breaking the limit, and have a fatal accident, where breaking the limit wasn't considered any form of cause. Otherwise the statistic would be meaningless and would not support your point.
The question is. Did it in some way cause the accident? Not. Did it in some way cause the accident to be fatal? Unless you can find different. Because I can't.
Munter said:
As far as I can tell the report doesn't define how a contributory factor is chosen. A minimum number of contributory factors. Or enforce that breaking the limit has to be a contributory factor in a fatal accident, when it has occurred. But if they are there. Do point them out.
Until you can find what I can't. My point still stands. You have to be able to be breaking the limit, and have a fatal accident, where breaking the limit wasn't considered any form of cause. Otherwise the statistic would be meaningless and would not support your point.
The question is. Did it in some way cause the accident? Not. Did it in some way cause the accident to be fatal? Unless you can find different. Because I can't.
The report states:Until you can find what I can't. My point still stands. You have to be able to be breaking the limit, and have a fatal accident, where breaking the limit wasn't considered any form of cause. Otherwise the statistic would be meaningless and would not support your point.
The question is. Did it in some way cause the accident? Not. Did it in some way cause the accident to be fatal? Unless you can find different. Because I can't.
"Most of the statistics in the publication are based on information about accidents reported to the police (using ‘Stats19’ forms)."
The STATS 19 form looks like this - and the contributory factors sheet (the last sheet) states that up to 6 contributory factors can be chosen for any given incident.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Guidance on how the police should fill this form in is given here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
This guidance document states that code 306 - "Exceeding the speed limit" should be used where:
"Driver/rider caused, or contributed to the accident, by exceeding the posted speed limit. This code should also be used in cases where the actions of another road user were the immediate cause of the accident but a speeding vehicle also contributed to causing the collision.
Includes exceeding variable speed limits (eg. on motorways) and speed limits based on vehicle type (including towing)."
Use this code (not code 307) if driver/rider was exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions."
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 25th January 14:47
Ok good.
So my point still stands.
1 cause (that meets the up to 6 requirement). Defective suspension (204).
No need for exceeding the speed limit to be mentioned because it wasn't the cause and didn't contribute to the accident.
There's nothing there saying it's a requirement for exceeding the limit to be recorded against a fatal accident, where a vehicle was exceeding the limit.
I'd have thought you'd be happy about that? It makes your statistic you used, a valid statistic.
So my point still stands.
1 cause (that meets the up to 6 requirement). Defective suspension (204).
No need for exceeding the speed limit to be mentioned because it wasn't the cause and didn't contribute to the accident.
There's nothing there saying it's a requirement for exceeding the limit to be recorded against a fatal accident, where a vehicle was exceeding the limit.
I'd have thought you'd be happy about that? It makes your statistic you used, a valid statistic.
The problem is that you can't really have this discussion in isolation.
In the absurd case, if no one moved, then no-one would die in road accidents. However, in this case, far higher numbers of people would die because society would cease to function. For example, if doctors were unable to get to hospital, lots of patients would die.
At the other extreme, if speeds were very high, then the impact of crashes will be high, but lives would almost certainly be saved by people being able to move more quickly - to reuse the hospital theme, if we were all used to driving at 300 miles an hour, then the reduction in journey times would save lives.
in the middle, there will be edge cases, and no one has a clue what the numbers are. if you slow everyone down, how many additional heart attacks are caused by stress? There will be a number .... but no one works out what it is.
Its a bit like the drink driving discussion. Undoubtedly stopping people driving pissed saves lives. But how many of the 6000+ suicides a year are contributed to by the loss of social amenity caused by pubs closing? I know of 1, which is why the thought occurs to me.
In the absurd case, if no one moved, then no-one would die in road accidents. However, in this case, far higher numbers of people would die because society would cease to function. For example, if doctors were unable to get to hospital, lots of patients would die.
At the other extreme, if speeds were very high, then the impact of crashes will be high, but lives would almost certainly be saved by people being able to move more quickly - to reuse the hospital theme, if we were all used to driving at 300 miles an hour, then the reduction in journey times would save lives.
in the middle, there will be edge cases, and no one has a clue what the numbers are. if you slow everyone down, how many additional heart attacks are caused by stress? There will be a number .... but no one works out what it is.
Its a bit like the drink driving discussion. Undoubtedly stopping people driving pissed saves lives. But how many of the 6000+ suicides a year are contributed to by the loss of social amenity caused by pubs closing? I know of 1, which is why the thought occurs to me.
Munter said:
No need for exceeding the speed limit to be mentioned because it wasn't the cause and didn't contribute to the accident.
There's nothing there saying it's a requirement for exceeding the limit to be recorded against a fatal accident, where a vehicle was exceeding the limit.
Exceeding the speed limit did contribute though in as much as the accident became a fatal one due to it (in your scenario at least).There's nothing there saying it's a requirement for exceeding the limit to be recorded against a fatal accident, where a vehicle was exceeding the limit.
None of the contributory factors are requirements. The guidance document states that they are recorded based on evidence and professional judgement of the officer(s) filing the report.
I wonder if we have any police officers lurking who can shed light on how STATS 19 reports are filled in and what they would consider to be 'contributory factors' in the scenario given.
I still not sure why you are arguing against the validity of the statistic you're quoting. Even if my example is flawed. The point remains. For your statistic to have worth, it has to be possible to have a fatal accident, above the speed limit, where being above the limit is not given as a cause for the accident. Otherwise it's mandatory and the statistic is meaningless.
Munter said:
I still not sure why you are arguing against the validity of the statistic you're quoting. Even if my example is flawed. The point remains. For your statistic to have worth, it has to be possible to have a fatal accident, above the speed limit, where being above the limit is not given as a cause for the accident. Otherwise it's mandatory and the statistic is meaningless.
I really don't follow the point you are trying to make. It's not 'my statistic'. The DFT report cites "exceeding the speed limit" as a contributory factor in 15% of fatal accidents. This means that in the remaining 85% of fatal accidents - "exceeding the speed limit" is not cited as a contributory factor. Do you disagree with this observation? Of course it is possible for a fatal accident to have occurred but where "exceeding the speed limit" is not recorded as a contributory factor - despite the fact that the vehicle was travelling above the speed limit prior to the incident (the reverse is also true).
Human error will always play a part and it could have simply been missed off the form, misidentified, written down incorrectly etc. This same argument applies to any contributory factor.
When looking at a report like this we have to make certain assumptions. One of which is that the data set is large enough that these types of errors will effectively average out in the final analysis and do not significantly influence the final overarching result. We also have to assume that the police officers recording this data have the skill and professional judgement required to make an accurate assessment as to what the relevant contributory factors are.
If we believe that these assumptions are invalid - then the entire report is essentially worthless since we cannot rely on any of the figures quoted in it.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 25th January 16:42
Moonhawk said:
Munter said:
I still not sure why you are arguing against the validity of the statistic you're quoting. Even if my example is flawed. The point remains. For your statistic to have worth, it has to be possible to have a fatal accident, above the speed limit, where being above the limit is not given as a cause for the accident. Otherwise it's mandatory and the statistic is meaningless.
I really don't follow the point you are trying to make.Of course it is possible for a fatal accident to have occurred but where "exceeding the speed limit" is not recorded as a contributory factor - despite the fact that the vehicle was travelling above the speed limit prior to the incident (the reverse is also true).
So. There is a disconnect between breaking the limit, and the cause(s) of the accident.
Yet we accept that the higher the speed the more likely someone is is to die in the accident.
So it's possible that travelling at a speed higher than the limit, was not that cause of the accident. But, was a cause of the fatality. I'm still not sure why you argued against that either.
Where we end up is with accidents where "speed kills", but that are not recorded with speeding as a cause. Because the cause of the accident was something other than the speed of the vehicle.
So your 85% statistic is valid for the causes of fatal collisions. Which is what it's measuring. But it doesn't tell us anything about how many people would have survived (or not) if all the collisions happened below the speed limit. Because it's not measuring that. Because of the disconnect between the recorded cause of the accident, and the actual cause of the fatality.
Munter said:
So your 85% statistic is valid for the causes of fatal collisions. Which is what it's measuring. But it doesn't tell us anything about how many people would have survived (or not) if all the collisions happened below the speed limit. Because it's not measuring that. Because of the disconnect between the recorded cause of the accident, and the actual cause of the fatality.
Isn't that what I stated in the post above 
"Also - collisions are such complex processes that it would be almost impossible to unpick a crash that involved a speeding car - and say the accident would still have occurred or the people involved would have still died even if the car was travelling below the limit."
We seem to be saying exactly the same thing (i.e. that you cannot state whether people who died in a fatal crash involving speeding would have in fact survived had the crash happened below the speed limit).
Jazzy Jag said:
Speeding is a major factor in deaths and injuries on the road and is tackled throughout the year under the partnership's ongoing Fatal 4 campaign.The lies continue!
Moonhawk said:
Munter said:
So your 85% statistic is valid for the causes of fatal collisions. Which is what it's measuring. But it doesn't tell us anything about how many people would have survived (or not) if all the collisions happened below the speed limit. Because it's not measuring that. Because of the disconnect between the recorded cause of the accident, and the actual cause of the fatality.
Isn't that what I stated in the post above "Also - collisions are such complex processes that it would be almost impossible to unpick a crash that involved a speeding car - and say the accident would still have occurred or the people involved would have still died even if the car was travelling below the limit."
We seem to be saying exactly the same thing (i.e. that you cannot state whether people who died in a fatal crash involving speeding would have in fact survived had the crash happened below the speed limit).
Moonhawk said:
What we can look at is the stats on an overall basis and say that in 85% of fatal accidents - speeding is not cited as one of the causes of either the accident or of the fatality.
Because as you agree. The last 4 words just shouldn't be there. You can't identify the cause of the fatality with this statistic. Just the cause of the collision.We can look at that stat. But it tells us as much about tea cups sold in Chingford, as it does about the number of deaths that could be prevented if nobody was speeding. Yet you decided to use it for some reason, so I pointed out it's not any use as a counter for the "Speed Kills" for all the reasons you've agreed with.
Using it makes some people think that speed wasn't a factor in 85% of fatalities. Yet you agree it's talking about the causes of the collisions, not the causes of the fatalities. So holds no weight in the argument against reducing or enforcing speed limits to reduce fatalities. You'd need a different stat for that, one that you say can't be identified.
Munter said:
Using it makes some people think that speed wasn't a factor in 85% of fatalities. Yet you agree it's talking about the causes of the collisions, not the causes of the fatalities. So holds no weight in the argument against reducing or enforcing speed limits to reduce fatalities. You'd need a different stat for that, one that you say can't be identified.
Who are these "some people" of which you speak. You keep using speed and speeding interchangeably - the two are very different things. Speed is a factor is every accident/collision by definition (as I already stated) - but speeding (i.e. exceeding the posted speed limit) only accounts for a relatively small subset of all accidents as the DFT data demonstrates.
Also - as I already stated, the DFT report cites contributory factors to 'fatal accidents' - not causes. The DFT report does not cite or discuss any 'causes' in relation to the factors that lead to an accident, other than a single sentence very early on to acknowledge that accidents do have causes.
Anything that contributes to the accident either occurring or being fatal would/should be recorded as a contributory factor. Whether that recording is accurate is another discussion (for the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that, by and large, it is accurate).
Yes we cant separate which contributory factor lead to the collision and which lead to the death in many cases, especially when looking at high level data as is presented in the DFT report - but we can say that the combination of identified contributory factors lead to the overall outcome (i.e. a fatal collision).
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 26th January 10:10
Moonhawk said:
Who are these "some people" of which you speak. You keep using speed and speeding interchangeably - the two are very different things.
You for a start. You pulled up the stat, to try and say 15% of fatalities have speeding as one of the causes. But that's wrong. 15% of accidents, that happen to be fatal, have speed as part of the cause of the accident. Nothing to do with the fatality. You agree to the disconnect. Therefore you agree you can't use that stat when deciding if speeding causes x number of fatalities. We do not know that number from what you are saying.Yet all over PH people will spout that 15% incorrectly, as an argument against "speed kills" and the suggestion that reducing speeds, by enforcing the limits better, could save a few lives. Which is easy, simple, and cost effective.
Your stat can only be used as an indication to the cause of accidents. Not as some marker to indicate how changing speeds (by enforcing the speed limit and reducing speeding by reducing the speed of some vehicles. See. Speed and speeding used in the same sentence but not interchangeably), would affect the number of road deaths.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff