Suffolk Scammers Respond ...
Discussion
Thought you might be interested in this reply I received to an E Mail I sent the Suffolk Partnership in which I quoted the DFT figures on what causes accidents:
I refer to your recent e mail concerning accident causation factors.
I assume, after carefully reading your quotes, that you are not familiar with the systems for recording Road Traffic Accident data and in particular the use made of contributory factors in the completion of the forms. The contributory factor data which you place so much reliance upon represents the opinion of the officer completing the form. This officer may or may not have attended the scene and is almost certainly not a trained accident investigator and probably not an experienced traffic officer. Often the contributory factors are not even filled in.
When accident data is scrutinised with a view to identifying common causative factors, every aspect of the information is carefully cross checked to ensure that a realistic assessment of the background to the crash is made. This work, in Suffolk at least, is carried out by trained and experienced accident investigators who are well aware of the limitations of the data supplied and devote considerable effort to ensuring that reliable conclusions are made before suggesting remedial measures. I don't entirely disagree with your view on the cause of crashes although I would suggest that driver behaviour is the problem. One of the most significant ways this develops is that many drivers greatly over estimate their capacity to deal with hazards and this is most frequently reflected in the speed at which they choose to drive.
Very few crashes are investigated fully, usually only those involving fatal or life changing injuries. As a result of this it is rare for a realistic assessment of vehicle speeds to be made. Surprisingly very few drivers admit to driving too fast, let alone exceeding the speed limit, and invariably they claim to be blameless - it is almost always the fault of some one else. I have summarised a few facts about crashes in Suffolk, none of these are 'opinions'. In some circumstances it is possible for a crash to fall into more than 1 category:
Vehicle defect 1.2%
Positive breath test 3.6%
Overtaking 5.7%
Rear end shunts 20.6%
Single vehicle only 29.1%
Skidded, lost control 32.4%
Ultimately I suspect that you have made up your mind but I would hope that you are prepared to consider the possibility that you may be wrong. Ultimately the results will speak for themselves and here in Suffolk it is quite clear that where vehicle speeds have been reduced this has been accompanied by a significant decrease in both the number and the severity of injuries suffered. This is most evident at our fixed camera sites where, since their introduction, fatal or serious casualties are down by about 90% and slight injuries are also reduced.
In view of the facts, briefly outlined above, I have no intention of altering the accurate information contained within our web site or leaflet.
Regards
Michelle Finnerty
Communications Manager
Suffolk SafeCam
What should I send back?
I refer to your recent e mail concerning accident causation factors.
I assume, after carefully reading your quotes, that you are not familiar with the systems for recording Road Traffic Accident data and in particular the use made of contributory factors in the completion of the forms. The contributory factor data which you place so much reliance upon represents the opinion of the officer completing the form. This officer may or may not have attended the scene and is almost certainly not a trained accident investigator and probably not an experienced traffic officer. Often the contributory factors are not even filled in.
When accident data is scrutinised with a view to identifying common causative factors, every aspect of the information is carefully cross checked to ensure that a realistic assessment of the background to the crash is made. This work, in Suffolk at least, is carried out by trained and experienced accident investigators who are well aware of the limitations of the data supplied and devote considerable effort to ensuring that reliable conclusions are made before suggesting remedial measures. I don't entirely disagree with your view on the cause of crashes although I would suggest that driver behaviour is the problem. One of the most significant ways this develops is that many drivers greatly over estimate their capacity to deal with hazards and this is most frequently reflected in the speed at which they choose to drive.
Very few crashes are investigated fully, usually only those involving fatal or life changing injuries. As a result of this it is rare for a realistic assessment of vehicle speeds to be made. Surprisingly very few drivers admit to driving too fast, let alone exceeding the speed limit, and invariably they claim to be blameless - it is almost always the fault of some one else. I have summarised a few facts about crashes in Suffolk, none of these are 'opinions'. In some circumstances it is possible for a crash to fall into more than 1 category:
Vehicle defect 1.2%
Positive breath test 3.6%
Overtaking 5.7%
Rear end shunts 20.6%
Single vehicle only 29.1%
Skidded, lost control 32.4%
Ultimately I suspect that you have made up your mind but I would hope that you are prepared to consider the possibility that you may be wrong. Ultimately the results will speak for themselves and here in Suffolk it is quite clear that where vehicle speeds have been reduced this has been accompanied by a significant decrease in both the number and the severity of injuries suffered. This is most evident at our fixed camera sites where, since their introduction, fatal or serious casualties are down by about 90% and slight injuries are also reduced.
In view of the facts, briefly outlined above, I have no intention of altering the accurate information contained within our web site or leaflet.
Regards
Michelle Finnerty
Communications Manager
Suffolk SafeCam
What should I send back?
Send here this back:
Dear Miss xxxxx
Having read your quick statistics, it is of interest to note that no mention is made of "speed" in thos stats.
However, after adding up all the stats you so thoughtfully provided, i am left with a shortfall of 7.4% which is i believe the figure attributed to speed as a cause in accidents, and which was recently revised down from 33% to the 7% figure i have just quoted by YOUR source of stats: the DFT!
Now that we have that out of the way, may i ask why it is that youre concentrating a disproportionate amount of resources into capture and prosecution of drivers exceeding a speed limit, when its not a major collision factor?
Far better to concentarte on the largest/larger causes and really make a difference dont you think? Or is it not profitable for you to actually reduce the numbers being killed?
After all, if you were anywhere near as effective at reducing pedestrian accidents (stepping into the road?) as you are at snapping drivers, then the figures would be a whole lot better, but, im afraid theres not really any profit to be made in that area.
Yours xxxx
got em!
>> Edited by deltaf on Friday 11th June 13:13
Dear Miss xxxxx
Having read your quick statistics, it is of interest to note that no mention is made of "speed" in thos stats.
However, after adding up all the stats you so thoughtfully provided, i am left with a shortfall of 7.4% which is i believe the figure attributed to speed as a cause in accidents, and which was recently revised down from 33% to the 7% figure i have just quoted by YOUR source of stats: the DFT!
Now that we have that out of the way, may i ask why it is that youre concentrating a disproportionate amount of resources into capture and prosecution of drivers exceeding a speed limit, when its not a major collision factor?
Far better to concentarte on the largest/larger causes and really make a difference dont you think? Or is it not profitable for you to actually reduce the numbers being killed?
After all, if you were anywhere near as effective at reducing pedestrian accidents (stepping into the road?) as you are at snapping drivers, then the figures would be a whole lot better, but, im afraid theres not really any profit to be made in that area.
Yours xxxx
got em! >> Edited by deltaf on Friday 11th June 13:13
What they have quoted is "what happened", not the "cause" of what happened. They're trying to throw you off the scent, just bullshit really, claiming this that and the other with the aim of saying that you don't know what you're talking about and they do.
Reply asking for the causes of skidding . . . that's wha we're really interested in.
Reply asking for the causes of skidding . . . that's wha we're really interested in.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff