Some sense from the DfT at last
Discussion
In response to asking to expalin the one third of all accidents are speed related:
Thank you for your further email to Ian Edwards dated 21 June 2004 regarding speed as a contributory factor in road traffic accidents. I have been asked to reply.
Around 3,400 people are killed and a further 36,000 seriously injured on our roads every year. This is clearly unacceptable and quite simply would not be tolerated on any other form of transport.
Excessive and inappropriate speed continues to be shown as a factor in many road accidents. This is reinforced in the recently published report entitled "Review of the contributory factors system". This review concerns the collection of road accident data on the STATS19 form, used by police at the scene of a road accident. STATS19 is periodically reviewed and modernised to ensure it remains an appropriate and effective tool.
Excessive speed is shown as a stand alone factor in STATS19. TRL report 323 "A new system for recording contributory factor in road accidents" showed excessive speed as a factor in 7.3% of accidents. However, speed is a complex issue that simply cannot be viewed in isolation.
Broadly speaking there are two types of speeding problem. Excessive speed - that is to say exceeding the speed limit and inappropriate speed
- that is to say within the speed limit but considered too fast for the prevailing conditions. Both examples of speeding behaviour need to be addressed in order to improve road safety and information gained from STATS19 provides the Department with a good guide to those areas where improvements can be made.
The Department has, in the past suggested that around one third of accidents are speed related. This is not a figure it continues to use. But not because the Department no longer believes in its accuracy. Just as speed is a complex issue, so is the recording of contributory factors.
Whether certain sections of the driving community accept it or not, inappropriate speed is likely to be a factor (although not necessarily the major factor) in many accidents. For example, many of the contributory factors set out in STATS19 describe driving actions; "following too close" and "lack of judgement of own path." Whilst these examples are easily understood and are likely to be the major factor, speed, and more importantly inappropriate speed will also play a part.
The Highway Code contains rule on stopping distances and mentions the "two second rule" as an appropriate distance to leave between vehicles travelling in the same direction. "Following too close" is likely to describe those accidents where the vehicle behind was within the two second rule. It could be argued this is bad driving, but the Department would contend that inappropriate speed would be part of the overall catalogue of errors that went into causing that accident.
It is interesting to note that "excessive speed" as a contributory factor appears to have risen from 7.3% in TRL 323 to 12.5% in recent research. This in itself is enough to suggest the Department is correct in its approach to develop policies to achieve safe, appropriate vehicle speeds.
In addition, based on the suggestions given above, the factors "excessive speed" "following too close" and "lack of judgement of own path" contained within the recent Departmental review, if added together amount to over 30% of contributory factors. This figure does not even include other factors such as "failed to avoid vehicle or object in carriageway" which totals 27.9% and can also be strongly argued has inappropriate speed as a secondary factor.
Ultimately, there will always be some drivers who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept the clear dangers associated with excessive and inappropriate speeding. However it is worth noting that none of these doubters has yet produced or made available any credible research to suggest speed is not a problem.
Thus the Department will continue to develop policies to create safe, appropriate vehicle speeds as its only aim is to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads.
I hope this is helpful.
Henrietta Hutcheon
Road Safety Division
Department of Transport
Thank you for your further email to Ian Edwards dated 21 June 2004 regarding speed as a contributory factor in road traffic accidents. I have been asked to reply.
Around 3,400 people are killed and a further 36,000 seriously injured on our roads every year. This is clearly unacceptable and quite simply would not be tolerated on any other form of transport.
Excessive and inappropriate speed continues to be shown as a factor in many road accidents. This is reinforced in the recently published report entitled "Review of the contributory factors system". This review concerns the collection of road accident data on the STATS19 form, used by police at the scene of a road accident. STATS19 is periodically reviewed and modernised to ensure it remains an appropriate and effective tool.
Excessive speed is shown as a stand alone factor in STATS19. TRL report 323 "A new system for recording contributory factor in road accidents" showed excessive speed as a factor in 7.3% of accidents. However, speed is a complex issue that simply cannot be viewed in isolation.
Broadly speaking there are two types of speeding problem. Excessive speed - that is to say exceeding the speed limit and inappropriate speed
- that is to say within the speed limit but considered too fast for the prevailing conditions. Both examples of speeding behaviour need to be addressed in order to improve road safety and information gained from STATS19 provides the Department with a good guide to those areas where improvements can be made.
The Department has, in the past suggested that around one third of accidents are speed related. This is not a figure it continues to use. But not because the Department no longer believes in its accuracy. Just as speed is a complex issue, so is the recording of contributory factors.
Whether certain sections of the driving community accept it or not, inappropriate speed is likely to be a factor (although not necessarily the major factor) in many accidents. For example, many of the contributory factors set out in STATS19 describe driving actions; "following too close" and "lack of judgement of own path." Whilst these examples are easily understood and are likely to be the major factor, speed, and more importantly inappropriate speed will also play a part.
The Highway Code contains rule on stopping distances and mentions the "two second rule" as an appropriate distance to leave between vehicles travelling in the same direction. "Following too close" is likely to describe those accidents where the vehicle behind was within the two second rule. It could be argued this is bad driving, but the Department would contend that inappropriate speed would be part of the overall catalogue of errors that went into causing that accident.
It is interesting to note that "excessive speed" as a contributory factor appears to have risen from 7.3% in TRL 323 to 12.5% in recent research. This in itself is enough to suggest the Department is correct in its approach to develop policies to achieve safe, appropriate vehicle speeds.
In addition, based on the suggestions given above, the factors "excessive speed" "following too close" and "lack of judgement of own path" contained within the recent Departmental review, if added together amount to over 30% of contributory factors. This figure does not even include other factors such as "failed to avoid vehicle or object in carriageway" which totals 27.9% and can also be strongly argued has inappropriate speed as a secondary factor.
Ultimately, there will always be some drivers who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept the clear dangers associated with excessive and inappropriate speeding. However it is worth noting that none of these doubters has yet produced or made available any credible research to suggest speed is not a problem.
Thus the Department will continue to develop policies to create safe, appropriate vehicle speeds as its only aim is to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads.
I hope this is helpful.
Henrietta Hutcheon
Road Safety Division
Department of Transport
I would suggest that response makes a very strong case for driver education, regarding following too closely or judging the path of your vehicle etc, and for enforcement by real people who can pick up and advise on (or punish) such driving errors. Not a money raiser, admittedly, but evidently likely to be more successful in reducing accidents than simply pursuing speeding might be.
The suggestion is still "If a vehicle is moving, it's dangerous - if it's moving faster, it's more dangerous. So make it move slower" This totally ignores that fact that their own research seems to demonstrate: that the main PRIMARY cause of accidents is NOT speeding.
Let's take another (made up statistics) example. Let's say that 10% of drivers are drunk. Let's say that 20% of accidents are caused by drunk driving. Therefore drunk drivers are twice as likely to have an accident as sober ones. Sensible so far - reduce the likelihood of drunk drivers and you reduce the likelhood of accidents.
But look at those statistics another way. 90% of drivers would then be sober. They are then responsible for 80% of accidents. Jees, 80% of accidents caused by sober drivers! Quick, get them pissed so that they are less dangerous!
Kneejerk reactions to bare statistics are not always the right answer! Nor are attempts to lump various categories together to shore up your case.
The fact remains that speeding is an easy target, and a revenue raiser. It's a quick and simple answer to a complex problem. But the quick and simple answers to complex problems are rarely quick and never simple (as somebody famous once said).
The suggestion is still "If a vehicle is moving, it's dangerous - if it's moving faster, it's more dangerous. So make it move slower" This totally ignores that fact that their own research seems to demonstrate: that the main PRIMARY cause of accidents is NOT speeding.
Let's take another (made up statistics) example. Let's say that 10% of drivers are drunk. Let's say that 20% of accidents are caused by drunk driving. Therefore drunk drivers are twice as likely to have an accident as sober ones. Sensible so far - reduce the likelihood of drunk drivers and you reduce the likelhood of accidents.
But look at those statistics another way. 90% of drivers would then be sober. They are then responsible for 80% of accidents. Jees, 80% of accidents caused by sober drivers! Quick, get them pissed so that they are less dangerous!
Kneejerk reactions to bare statistics are not always the right answer! Nor are attempts to lump various categories together to shore up your case.
The fact remains that speeding is an easy target, and a revenue raiser. It's a quick and simple answer to a complex problem. But the quick and simple answers to complex problems are rarely quick and never simple (as somebody famous once said).
Henrietta Hutcheon said:
"Following too close" is likely to describe those accidents where the vehicle behind was within the two second rule. It could be argued this is bad driving, but the Department would contend that inappropriate speed would be part of the overall catalogue of errors that went into causing that accident.
that requires one helluva leap of the imagination
David Brent said:
Statistics are like a lamp-post to a drunken man - more for leaning on than illumination.
DfT boilerplate said:
It is interesting to note that "excessive speed" as a contributory factor appears to have risen from 7.3% in TRL 323 to 12.5% in recent research. This in itself is enough to suggest the Department is correct in its approach to develop policies to achieve safe, appropriate vehicle speeds.
Let's see. Since TRL 323 in 1996 we have increased speed camera fines from 262,000 to over 1 million in 2001. At the same time "excessive speed accidents" have increased. So clearly we need more speed cameras to ... err ... surely some mistake?
Some sense? Not very much! To suggest that "driving too close" infers excessive speed? I'm speechless. Consider that when "driving too close" the driver behind is generally driving at the same speed as the one in front (otherwise he'd either crash or fall back, obviously). Ergo, if in this situation it is deemed that excessive speed is a factor, then the guy in front is ALSO GUILTY!!! Doh!
voyds9 said:
7.3% of accidents directlty related to speeds in excess of speed limit
3400 deaths annually
7.3% x 3400 = 249 deaths due to speeding
Nope. Not a chance.
Those aren't accidents caused or contributed to by "speeding". They are "excessive speed" accidents. The figure includes inappropriate speed within the speed limit as well as speeding in excess of the limit. Figures from Avon and Somerset, Durham and Canada all put the split as 70% inappropriate but within the speed limit and 30% in excess of the speed limit.
Then there's a group within the remainder who are seriously illegal and aren't likely to pay attention to speed enforcement. These are drunk speeders. Joyriders in stolen cars. Criminals escaping the scene of a crime. Unlicenced drivers. Drivers in untraceable cars. Drugged drivers. Illegal street racers. These groups have high publicity high speed crashes but cameras won't deter them. This group might be 30% of the "speeding" accidents.
Then there's the efficiency of the cameras. No one would be stupid enough to claim that cameras would cut out excessive speed accidents completely. Let's be generous and say cameras could one day affect 30% of the remainder.
So we get 3500 fatals * 7.3% * 30% * 70% * 30% = 16.
So 5,000 speed camera are chasing 16 lives annually.
Oh, and the side effects are costing 1,200 lives per year.
cuneus said:
In response to asking to explain the one third of all accidents are speed related:
Henrietta Hutcheon Road Safety Division Department of Transport said:
Thank you for your further email to Ian Edwards dated 21 June 2004 regarding speed as a contributory factor in road traffic accidents. I have been asked to reply.
Around 3,400 people are killed and a further 36,000 seriously injured on our roads every year. This is clearly unacceptable and quite simply would not be tolerated on any other form of transport............
Except, in relation to the the passenger, and even vehicle miles, on the rail-roads, with cyclists, and even in the safest form of transport, aircraft, when compared over comparable journeys (around 300 to 500 miles), as I understand it.
victormeldrew said:
Care to elucidate on that final throw-away remark Paul?
Sure - have a look at:
www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html and
www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
Latest spreadsheet:
www.safespeed.org.uk/6800.xls
That email from the DfT is cobblers. Excessive speed will rarely cause an accident on its own, and in any event just because a speed is inexcess of the speed limit does not on its own mean it is excessive or dangerous.
If you are approaching a hairpin bend in a 30 mph limit at 34mph and crash because you can't get round the corner then under the DfT the accident is caused by excessive speed. On an identical road, identical circumstances but a 40mph limit the accident is now caused by inappropriate speed! In actual fact they were both caused by inappropriate speed for that point on the road, and my the driver not paying attention to road signs warning of the hairpin bend.
If you are driving 5 ft off someones rear bumper on the motorway and they stop and you hit them it is because you were driving too close. Speed has nothing to do with it. You could have been doing the same speed 50 yards behind and stopped safely. The accident was caused by the inattentiveness on behalf of the driver.
Wehn it comes to accidents the speed limit is irrelevant. Accidents are caused by someone making a mistake, that mistake may be falling asleep, it may be misjudging the speed of a vehicle, or it may be misjudging the road/weather conditions at the time. Speed on its own does not cause accidents.
However it is impossible to prove otherwise as only the DfT has the ability to tell the police what data to collect.
The questions the police should be asked are: -
What speed were the vehicles doing?
Were those speeds inappropriate for the time of day/weather conditions?
What other factor caused the accident?
The speed limit on the road is not a factor, as it has no impact on accidents, all it will do is reduce the severity of any accident.
If you are approaching a hairpin bend in a 30 mph limit at 34mph and crash because you can't get round the corner then under the DfT the accident is caused by excessive speed. On an identical road, identical circumstances but a 40mph limit the accident is now caused by inappropriate speed! In actual fact they were both caused by inappropriate speed for that point on the road, and my the driver not paying attention to road signs warning of the hairpin bend.
If you are driving 5 ft off someones rear bumper on the motorway and they stop and you hit them it is because you were driving too close. Speed has nothing to do with it. You could have been doing the same speed 50 yards behind and stopped safely. The accident was caused by the inattentiveness on behalf of the driver.
Wehn it comes to accidents the speed limit is irrelevant. Accidents are caused by someone making a mistake, that mistake may be falling asleep, it may be misjudging the speed of a vehicle, or it may be misjudging the road/weather conditions at the time. Speed on its own does not cause accidents.
However it is impossible to prove otherwise as only the DfT has the ability to tell the police what data to collect.
The questions the police should be asked are: -
What speed were the vehicles doing?
Were those speeds inappropriate for the time of day/weather conditions?
What other factor caused the accident?
The speed limit on the road is not a factor, as it has no impact on accidents, all it will do is reduce the severity of any accident.
safespeed said:
It is interesting to note that "excessive speed" as a contributory factor appears to have risen from 7.3% in TRL 323 to 12.5% in recent research. This in itself is enough to suggest the Department is correct in its approach to develop policies to achieve safe, appropriate vehicle speeds.
Let's see. Since TRL 323 in 1996 we have increased speed camera fines from 262,000 to over 1 million in 2001. At the same time "excessive speed accidents" have increased. So clearly we need more speed cameras to ... err ... surely some mistake?
Excellent Paul, definitely a coffee meets keyboard moment.
Another factor to consider is the incorrect completion of the forms in the first place. Over on the CSCP forum, the resident trafpol admits he ticks 'excessive speed' for most accidents in the KSI bracket because 'if they were not going so fast the injuries would be less severe'. In other words he is mixing outcome with cause, and I bet he is not the only one!
safespeed said:Thanks!
Care to elucidate on that final throw-away remark Paul?
Sure - have a look at:
www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html and
www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
Latest spreadsheet:
www.safespeed.org.uk/6800.xls
SS said:Well said!
Responsibility for safe speed setting is being removed from drivers. Instead they must drive to standard speeds posted by local authorities and others. But responsibility is a core value of safe driving. Erode drivers responsibilities and their performance in terms of setting safe speeds and avoiding crashes is highly likely to worsen.
Just divvied up for lifetime membership Paul, many thanks for your splendid efforts! I wish I could afford to become a Friend of SafeSpeed, but I have, ahem, a couple of court appearance pending which may require some funds!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff