Crashes increase despite scamera growth
Gatsos ineffective at preventing fatalities despite increased car safety
Gatsos don't save lives: official
In response to a parliamentary question, roads minister Dr Stephen Ladyman revealed that 'excessive speed' crashes have increased markedly in recent years as the speed camera programme has expanded.
Percentage of crashes involving 'excessive speed':
Year Fatal Serious
1999 29% 12%
2000 26% 12%
2001 27% 12%
2002 30% 13%
2003 30% 14%
2004 34% 13%
Founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign Paul Smith said: "It's no surprise to me that 'excessive speed' crashes are increasing as the speed camera network expands. Speed cameras give a series of false safety messages. One important false message is that 'if you're not exceeding the limit your speed is safe'. Nothing could be further from the truth, yet we have millions of motorists who now regard the speedometer as a barometer of safety.
"We need drivers who respond to hazards and slow down in areas of danger. Obeying the speed limit is no substitute for this vital and commonplace driver behaviour, yet the government appears to wish motorists to drive at the speed limit.
"If speed cameras did not reduce 'excessive speed' crashes they would be useless. But if excessive speed crashes increase as speed cameras increase then speed cameras are deadly. That's exactly what we're seeing and exactly what I've long been predicting. Speed cameras have proved to be a fatal mistake."
Safer cars today
Meanwhile, the safety of some types of car, from the occupants' perspective, has increased five-fold. That's a result of ten years of crash testing under the Euro New Car Assessment Programme (NCAP).
Seen as controversial by the motor industry ten years ago, the programme has helped to save lives across Europe. Safety ratings of similar category cars have gone from one star to five stars in less than ten years due to the influence of the Euro NCAP, according to the RAC Foundation.
Research shows that as far as the risk of serious injury or death is concerned, cars which score three or four stars in Euro NCAP tests were about 30 per cent safer compared with two stars or cars with no score.
NCAP was established in 1995 and the first tests were supported by the Department for Transport, International Testing, the Swedish National Road Administration, the FIA, the AA and the RAC.
The first cars were tested in February1997 and brought dramatic and shocking results. The worst performer for occupant safety was the Rover 100, which was only awarded one star for protection in frontal and side impact. Up until these first tests the UK consumer did not know if a particular car was safer than another car in the category. The poor performance of the Rover 100 had dramatic results with some police forces refusing to use these cars and some mothers refusing to use child minders who ferried children around in these vehicles.
The motor industry was up in arms about the tests claiming that the cars were crashed at unrealistic speeds (40mph for frontal impact and 30mph for side impact). This was the first time in the UK that a series of crash tests had been conducted where the results were made available to everyone.
The UK’s Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) played a key role in developing these tests. All the cars tested were bought anonymously to ensure that each was a normal production model. Since the early days more than £6 million has been spent on purchasing more than 400 cars representing more than 200 different car models. For the tests two examples of each car were purchased in order to conduct both frontal and side-impact tests.
Carmakers embrace NCAP ratings
After initial resistance from the motor manufacturers to the crash-testing programme certain manufacturers broke ranks and started to use the Euro NCAP results as an integral part of their marketing strategy. Now it is common to see Euro NCAP 5 stars emblazoned across print and broadcasting advertising, as well as across the rear window of many cars.
It is interesting to make some comparisons between the first cars crashed and results of most recent tests on the current equivalent models.
The Fiat Punto and Renault Clio both scored two stars in occupant protection in 1997 but five stars in 2005. The Ford Fiesta and Nissan Micra also scored two stars for occupant protection in 1997 but four stars in 2003. The VW Polo scored three stars in 1997 and four stars in 2002. The Rover 100 scored one star in 1997 and soon went out of production so was never re-tested.
“In the new Fiat Punto” TRL explains, “the structure surrounding the occupants has been drastically improved, providing a rigid safety cell which is more capable of withstanding the impact forces. In addition to improvements in structural safety, advanced occupant restraint systems have also been developed which provide greater control of the occupants’ deceleration during an impact. Such systems include dual seat-belt pre-tensioners and load limiting seat belts.”
Progress on pedestrian safety has been slower but more recent results are encouraging.
Comment
Road Safety Minister Stephen Ladyman, said: "When the UK Government started its NCAP programme a decade ago, it was almost impossible to assess the comparative safety of passenger cars. But in collaboration with the FIA and others, EuroNCAP has pioneered a ratings system that is both a benchmark for manufacturers and a quality assurance for the consumer. Over the last 10 years, the number of stars achieving five stars has vastly increased, and people looking for crash protection now have real choice in the new car market. I look forward to what Euro NCAP can achieve in the future".
Executive director of the RAC Foundation Edmund King said: “Euro NCAP has transformed in-car safety. I was shocked and felt physically sick looking at some of the first cars crashed. Having seen some of the results close up I vowed never to ever travel in certain cars but to campaign for safety improvements. It is gratifying to see that ten years later many of the poorer performers are now five star cars.”
David Ward, director general of the FIA Foundation said: “Euro NCAP placed car safety on the agenda and transformed vehicle design. Cars today routinely achieve five stars for occupant protection, as they should. Progress is being made on pedestrian protection, with the first four star car announced last week. The priority for Euro NCAP’s second decade must be on promoting active safety, such as electronic stability control, to improve crash prevention. I am proud that the FIA was involved at the very start of Euro NCAP, support which continues today through the FIA Foundation.”
TRL's Euro NCAP project manager James Ellway said: “Euro NCAP has provided vehicle manufacturers with an incentive to build safer cars as well as providing consumers with independent safety advice, which they can use to make an informed choice when buying a new car. Euro NCAP is playing a key role in helping to meet the UK Department for Transport's strategy for improving road safety (2000-2010), which aims to reduce the number of road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent.”
Thatcham's director of research Andrew Miller, said; "As Euro NCAP’s newest member, Thatcham, representing British Insurers, applauds the improvements in vehicle safety driven by the work of the programme. Euro NCAP's work in the last decade has seen occupant safety improve dramatically and now pedestrian safety is also at the forefront of manufacturers design priorities. The growing awareness amongst the motorist that safety is not an option but a right can surely be laid at feet of this powerful organisation."
I'd say there's a high probability that car manufacturers - including the ones that had teams of engineers and doctors on the road assessing real-world accidents of their vehicles - now simply engineer a car to perform as well as possible in the EuroNCAP standard test procedures (which to date only covers 1 offset frontal impact, 1 side impact ('pole test'), 1 pedestrian test), even if it likely compromises its performance in other types of accidents. The media hype around EuroNCAP and the value of a five star rating as a marketing tool makes it commercial suicide for a manufacturer to do otherwise.
So whilst EuroNCAP no doubt has prompted car manufacturers who hitherto paid scant attention to occupant protection to clean up their act, I think it's very likely that it's dumbed down the safety standards of marques that already had a strong bias to safety engineering, and developed their own safety philosophy as they went.
Compare the real-world data on the Folksam (www.folksam.se) survey, and the EuroNCAP results on for instance the Saab 900 (1994-'98) and the VW Golf IV and see there's in some cases a huge difference between a car's performance under a narrowly-defined set of laboratory conditions and in the real world.
It's also very probable that drivers subconsciously adapt their behaviour to the perceived safety of their cars, to what they feel is an 'acceptable' risk level. This 'risk compensation' is a widely recognised psychological phenomenon, and illustrated by surveys that indicated people with ABS-equipped cars were more likely to rear-end other vehicles than drivers of non-ABS cars (the more likely, of course, is because of the difference in people's perception of what ABS does, and what it really does. ABS won't help you stop the car if you're on a surface that offers a friction coefficient of 0.0.).
In ten years time cars have not only become bigger and heavier because of increased safety standards (more metal), but they feature also a lot more sound insulation and creature comforts. We've become ever more cocooned in our comfy, silent, padded 'safety' cells - again, the increase in perceived safety may well have been a lot greater than the actual increase.
Then there's governments' approach to road safety - which as we all know has consistently concentrated on one variable in a highly complex equation - (absolute vehicle) speed. Again, this has the benefit of simplicity and comparability (we all know the blurbs of 'for every 1 mph faster, you are x% more likely to crash blah blah) and has led to a de-sensitising of th public to the art of safe and considerate driving. You wnat to be safe? Simple, sonny. Just don't speed. meanwhile, million of responsible drivers who actually are giving the safety aspects of their driving some thought, are penalized for trivial transgressions of an arbitrary limit, and branded as criminals.
Anyone else find it unsurprising that despite all these efforts, road deaths are not on the decrease, nor wil they in the forseeable future?
>> Edited by 900T-R on Friday 25th November 10:44
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff