Transport Ministry abandons 'Speed Kills' mantra
ABD calls for safety policy rethink.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has at last abandoned one of the key foundations of its "Kill Your Speed" policy - the assertion that speeding causes a third of accidents, according to the Association of British Drivers (ABD). The ABD believes that this should herald a return to a much more positive and effective road safety policy, which will save many lives.
"Getting rid of the notorious one third fallacy is the best thing that's happened to road safety in years," said ABD Road Safety spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie. "All the research on the causes of crashes shows that the one third fallacy blames speeding for ten times as many accidents as it actually causes. This fundamental error has led to safe behaviour being criminalised whilst dangerous driving and badly designed roads are allowed to persist."
In a recent letter to a member of the public, a DfT official produced the following carefully worded, face saving climbdown: "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."
The words may be carefully chosen but the message is clear - the evidence from real accidents don't support the "one third" fallacy, and the DfT have been forced to abandon it.
The whole foundation of the speed reduction policies of the last dozen years has been based on the statement that speeding causes a third of road deaths.
Now, the DfT has finally admitted that it can't back it up from real evidence - which suggests that three per cent is nearer the mark than 33 per cent.
This means that most of the speed limit reductions, traffic calming and speed camera enforcement introduced to target this one third of accidents have been misguided.
When the authorities should have been spending five per cent of their effort targeting a small number of reckless drivers travelling excessively fast in dangerous circumstances, they have instead been led by the one-third fallacy to criminalise normal progress and to prosecute safe and reasonable behaviour.
They have also neglected the causes of 95 per cent of accidents, related to poor road design, inattention and misjudgement. Many of these causes have actually been made worse by the obsession with speed, as drivers have become distracted from the business of driving and cynical about all road safety campaigns.
"Now the one-third fallacy is fading from sight, we need to get back to measures which help drivers to control their speed properly in response to the conditions rather than penalise them for driving safely," said ABD Chairman Brian Gregory.
Don't stop watching for those dastardly cameras just yet though -- these things take a long time to travel from hindbrain to forebrain, and a very tough politician to admit they're wrong. Few do.
More background on the misuse of these statistics at www.onethirdlie.org.uk/
spnracing said:
I don't see what this changes?
If the figure was only 1% thats still 35 people that die every year and speed cameras are self financing - so why not have them anyway?
Don't get out of bed in the morning, you might stop breathing at some point. Life is inherently dangerous, live with that. taking all risk away reduces us to no more thatn vegetables. You might enjoy that existence, I, and millions of others, don't.. I am NOT advocating total lunacy on the roads, I am saying treat us as intelligent humans and we will do the right thing.
There comes a point when diminishing returns kicks in - I believe we are close to that point in terms of road safety and with natural variation in annual death rates (accidents aren't controllable to that extent, cos there are people involved) a 1% swing is negligable. Logic, not emotion, makes for good law.
spnracing said:
I was just stating the obvious reply from the powers that be.
Its the old argument about campaigning against speed limits laws rather than technology to enforce existing laws.
Any argument that ultimately is saying that we should be allowed to break the law is doomed.
Then the law needs changing.
spnracing said:
I don't see what this changes?
If the figure was only 1% thats still 35 people that die every year and speed cameras are self financing - so why not have them anyway?
Simple - because it damages the very fabric of our society. In the same way that people are prepared to die for ideals, we as a society have to look further than saving life at all cost, but look at the bigger picture - i.e. is society as a whole improved or damaged by each new policy/law?
>> Edited by CraigAlsop on Monday 6th September 14:47
spnracing said:
I don't see what this changes?
If the figure was only 1% thats still 35 people that die every year and speed cameras are self financing - so why not have them anyway?
Because there are other things which could be done instead which would be much more effective - and self-financing - so doing this instead costs lives.
Simon
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory said:I dread to think what the lentilists will do with this quote. (Our friend Steve has reappeared today - what a surprise.) A bit of an own goal if you ask me.
Now the one-third fallacy is fading from sight, we need to get back to measures which help drivers to control their speed properly in response to the conditions rather than penalise them for driving safely.
That said, at least we have a start - however minimal it may be.
spnracing - I read your missing
and thought you might feel in need of support 
.Peter Ward said:
I don't see what this changes?
If the figure was only 1% thats still 35 people that die every year and speed cameras are self financing - so why not have them anyway?
"If they just save one life they've done their job...."
Your argument hinges on one assumption; the assumption of "IF". Dont state assumptions, state facts. A fact is something proven empirically. NO such facts exist for your assumption.
I can therefore state
ARSE! with true conviction in respect to your assumption.Peter Ward said:
"If they just save one life they've done their job...."
Oh, very droll, sir
Ho ho indeed. Sigh... It winds me up something chronic when numpties living comfortably and happily in a developed, motorised society make rampant claims like that - follow it through and it amounts to giving up all forms of mechanical traffic and all the benefits that come with it, just so you can "save one life".
Oh, so you'd rather go back to living your entire, short, unhealthy life within a few miles of your cave, competing for ridiculously scarce food resources and polluted water, while warlords with large gangs of merciless armed lunatics bash you on the head and molest the members of your family that haven't already died of some terrible disease, would you?
Alright, so maybe that's a little extreme, but take away transport, communications and electricity, and clean water, and leadership, and police (they might be there still, but it would take a while for them to hear that you'd been butchered earlier that year) and you might find it's not so far off.
Arrgh, I'm going for a lie down... Anyway, I'm very glad they've stopped using the onethirdlie! Shows they listen eventually!
>> Edited by Dodge on Monday 6th September 16:13
deltaf said:
spnracing said:
I don't see what this changes?
If the figure was only 1% thats still 35 people that die every year and speed cameras are self financing - so why not have them anyway?
"If they just save one life they've done their job...."
Your argument hinges on one assumption; the assumption of "IF". Dont state assumptions, state facts. A fact is something proven empirically. NO such facts exist for your assumption.
I can therefore state
Sorry, my comment was meant to quote Brake, etc who use this sort of rubbish to justify low speed limits, speed cameras, camera vans on every motorway bridge, speed humps everywhere, etc, etc. It is not my own opinion, hence the
. Perhaps I should have used 
or similar to make the point more strongly.If you were worried about me ranting on - don't worry, I certainly spotted the comedy intended in your quote, and was about to use it myself.
I certainly didn't mean to suggest you yourself were in any way a numpty likely to believe that drivel. I was hoping the winky would show that..
In all other situations, a real life copper is much more effective. You want a camera outside a school? Fine, but if you have a real life copper there, you also get the parents feeling more secure about their childrens safety, maybe thinking a bit more about where they abandon their vehicles, and also a random check on those vehicles for tax/condition etc.
Have a nice day, now.
mrmaggit said:
I can only accept Gatso's as Red Light Cameras.
In all other situations, a real life copper is much more effective. You want a camera outside a school? Fine, but if you have a real life copper there, you also get the parents feeling more secure about their childrens safety, maybe thinking a bit more about where they abandon their vehicles, and also a random check on those vehicles for tax/condition etc.
Have a nice day, now.
Absolutely...and the numpty parents who park on the yellow zig zags outside school!
Street
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff