2005 casualty statistics released
Discussion
http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006
So deaths on the road changed from 3221 to 3210 - speed cameras are working? That's a 0.7% reduction, which as we all know is statistically irrelevant.
Can anyone decipher what the note on page 3 means?
So deaths on the road changed from 3221 to 3210 - speed cameras are working? That's a 0.7% reduction, which as we all know is statistically irrelevant.
Can anyone decipher what the note on page 3 means?
Amazing! That note on p3 quotes stats included in the recently released BMJ article (but attributed to the TRL??) regarding the under-reporting of SIs and Is, without also quoting that KSIs have not decreased over the last 10 years!! Talk about selective reporting....
I also note that the majority of figures have gone down slightly over 2004, and significantly over the 94-98 "baseline". Despite all our protestations to the contrary, the report "proves" that government policy is successful.
I also note that the majority of figures have gone down slightly over 2004, and significantly over the 94-98 "baseline". Despite all our protestations to the contrary, the report "proves" that government policy is successful.
The 'Speed Kills' philosophy is far more effective at irritating the responsible majority than it is at making the roads safer.
If only somebody would apply the same zeal to dealing with people who drive too close on the motorway, for instance - that'd be one far more effective way of reducing the number of accidents.
If only somebody would apply the same zeal to dealing with people who drive too close on the motorway, for instance - that'd be one far more effective way of reducing the number of accidents.
alphadog said:
The 'Speed Kills' philosophy is far more effective at irritating the responsible majority than it is at making the roads safer.
If only somebody would apply the same zeal to dealing with people who drive too close on the motorway, for instance - that'd be one far more effective way of reducing the number of accidents.
If only somebody would apply the same zeal to dealing with people who drive too close on the motorway, for instance - that'd be one far more effective way of reducing the number of accidents.
At the risk of being pedantic, the government's goal is not to reduce the number of accidents. It is to reduce the number of Ks, SIs and Is (as stated in the report: "In 2000, the government set a new target for a reduction in the number of casualties to achieve a 40 per cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 2010, compared with the average for 1994-98; a 50 per cent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured; and a 10 per cent reduction in the slight casualty rate, expressed as the number of people slightly injured per 100 million vehicle kilometres." )
There may be a correlation between reducing accidents and reducing KSIs, but if the government can only have one it will take the KSIs thank you very much. So you can have as many accidents as you like as long as nobody is injured. That's why speed limits are reduced, based on the idea that lower speed limits mean lower-speed impacts. Which may not be true if drivers lose concentration and drive with less care. Cue an advert for Paul's Safe Speed stats....
Edited by Peter Ward on Thursday 29th June 22:45
What a truly dreadfull set of figures!
A massive coincidence that exactly the same amount of pedestrians (671) were killed in 2005 as in 2004. Also Goods vehicle drivers (109) same in both years.
Cyclist fatalities were up by 10%.
Very interesting to note the figures for the main target of the Speed Camera Partnerships, namely car drivers. Fatalities up by four.That includes mini buses and Taxis.
Rather proves without any doubt what a dangerous, farcical excuse for a safety policy the Camera Partnerships really are. Despite stinging millions of safe drivers they have achieved absolutely nothing in terms of safety! Makes me mad, they should be disbanded immediately!
A massive coincidence that exactly the same amount of pedestrians (671) were killed in 2005 as in 2004. Also Goods vehicle drivers (109) same in both years.
Cyclist fatalities were up by 10%.
Very interesting to note the figures for the main target of the Speed Camera Partnerships, namely car drivers. Fatalities up by four.That includes mini buses and Taxis.
Rather proves without any doubt what a dangerous, farcical excuse for a safety policy the Camera Partnerships really are. Despite stinging millions of safe drivers they have achieved absolutely nothing in terms of safety! Makes me mad, they should be disbanded immediately!
Peter Ward said:
I also note that the majority of figures have gone down slightly over 2004, and significantly over the 94-98 "baseline". Despite all our protestations to the contrary, the report "proves" that government policy is successful.
Sarcasm Peter?
Motor bike fatalities are up 22% on the baseline 94-98.
Total fatalities are down 11% on 94-98.
I wonder why they chose 94-98 as the baseline? What would happen if we changed that to 98-02, when the Partnerships came into existence?
I honestly haven't seen the stats so I don't know, but I guess 94-98 had particularly high figures?
deeps said:
existence?
I honestly haven't seen the stats so I don't know, but I guess 94-98 had particularly high figures?
I honestly haven't seen the stats so I don't know, but I guess 94-98 had particularly high figures?
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_040982.pdf
deeps said:
I wonder why they chose 94-98 as the baseline? What would happen if we changed that to 98-02, when the Partnerships came into existence?
I honestly haven't seen the stats so I don't know, but I guess 94-98 had particularly high figures?
If you are publishing a ten year plan in 2000 to hit targets by 2010, it's difficult to use 1998-2002 as your baseline isn't it ?
With 1998 being the last full years figures available at the plans inception, if you are going to use four consecutive years as your baseline, 1994-98 is the obvious choice (& not for any ulterior motive).
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 30th June 06:49
deeps said:
What a truly dreadfull set of figures!
A massive coincidence that exactly the same amount of pedestrians (671) were killed in 2005 as in 2004. Also Goods vehicle drivers (109) same in both years.
Cyclist fatalities were up by 10%.
A massive coincidence that exactly the same amount of pedestrians (671) were killed in 2005 as in 2004. Also Goods vehicle drivers (109) same in both years.
Cyclist fatalities were up by 10%.
True - but also there are more cyclists - especially in London where I understand ist not nicest of places to ride a bike per a new poster over on Paulie's site. I think more riders - more hazard risk und if the cyclists are jostling as well (in all mags discussing the Tour which start this weekend - they say crashes amongst racers are inevitable - epecially where they "bunch"
deeps said:
Very interesting to note the figures for the main target of the Speed Camera Partnerships, namely car drivers. Fatalities up by four.That includes mini buses and Taxis.
Rather proves without any doubt what a dangerous, farcical excuse for a safety policy the Camera Partnerships really are. Despite stinging millions of safe drivers they have achieved absolutely nothing in terms of safety! Makes me mad, they should be disbanded immediately!
I do know thaat Lancs had recorded increase Jan-July - despite the cams und the course (but they invite wrong people.
I know a young 24 year - invite for 35 mph in 30 mph. She say same thing as the reps as regaard course content und was pleasantly surprised by the content und learned eseential COAST skills (und she has a COAAST form 
). She also say there were only 2 people including herself below the age of 50 years on this course. Most were aged 50-75 years....
Perhaps this ist why. They not teach those who really need this education.
puggit said:
Can anyone decipher what the note on page 3 means?
I'll try....
Data collected on accidents in the UK is done by the police through Collision Report forms grouped as STATS19.
Firstly, not every accident is reported to, or assessed by, the police. For example, I bang my car into a tree, have a few minor cuts and go to A&E myself - there effectively is no *data* correlation between my accident and my injuries caused in that accident. Therefore I am not recorded as part of STATS19, therefore the KSI isn't recorded, though it should be a slight. At the other end of the scale, I crash my car and die at the scene. This, obviously enough, would be recorded, as a fatal. And it's a sliding scale between both - for example, I crash and die in hospital within 2 weeks = fatal. I crash, go into a coma and die after 2 months = serious injury (because fatalities are only attributed up to 30 days after the event).
The note is effectively saying there is no guarantee (and nor can there be) of a true 1:1 correlation between the data and what actually happened.
You can look at what is recorded on the forms at www.stats19.org.uk
deeps said:
Peter Ward said:
I also note that the majority of figures have gone down slightly over 2004, and significantly over the 94-98 "baseline". Despite all our protestations to the contrary, the report "proves" that government policy is successful.
Sarcasm Peter?
Motor bike fatalities are up 22% on the baseline 94-98.
Total fatalities are down 11% on 94-98.
I wonder why they chose 94-98 as the baseline? What would happen if we changed that to 98-02, when the Partnerships came into existence?
I honestly haven't seen the stats so I don't know, but I guess 94-98 had particularly high figures?
Not sarcasm, just frustration. The report, when you scan through the tables, is predominantly filled with "-1", "-4", etc numbers in the difference columns. Now we can argue that cameras have had no impact or a negative impact, that other contributors are more important (car safety, etc), but the overwhelming message of the report is that the government demanded a decline in KSIs and it's getting what it wants through its road safety policies.
Von, we don't always agree but I respect your opinion. May I ask if you think the government are on course to achieve their target and are thus doing a good job with present policy?
It just strikes me like a hammer blow to the head, that a rise in car fatalities, a rise in cyclist fatalities and no reduction in pedestrian or HGV fatalities over the previous year, is not a good indication of an effective policy. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, maybe I'm missing something obvious?
It just strikes me like a hammer blow to the head, that a rise in car fatalities, a rise in cyclist fatalities and no reduction in pedestrian or HGV fatalities over the previous year, is not a good indication of an effective policy. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, maybe I'm missing something obvious?
vonhosen said:
With 1998 being the last full years figures available at the plans inception, if you are going to use four consecutive years as your baseline, 1994-98 is the obvious choice (& not for any ulterior motive).
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 30th June 06:49
ooooh all so plausible except why 4 yrs? why not 3 or 1 or 5? These odd numbers are more typical of reporting periods.
The government while incompentant are not stupid. Anyone, in any profession, if setting their own target to be judged by will at least examine the calculation of the baseline to ensure it gives the best starting point.
deeps said:
Von, we don't always agree but I respect your opinion. May I ask if you think the government are on course to achieve their target and are thus doing a good job with present policy?
It just strikes me like a hammer blow to the head, that a rise in car fatalities, a rise in cyclist fatalities and no reduction in pedestrian or HGV fatalities over the previous year, is not a good indication of an effective policy. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, maybe I'm missing something obvious?
It just strikes me like a hammer blow to the head, that a rise in car fatalities, a rise in cyclist fatalities and no reduction in pedestrian or HGV fatalities over the previous year, is not a good indication of an effective policy. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, maybe I'm missing something obvious?
Look at the figures,
The number of people killed or seriously injured was 33 per cent below the baseline (Target by 2010 is 40%)
The number of children killed or seriously injured was 49 per cent below the baseline (Target by 2010 is 50%)
The provisional estimate of the slight casualty rate was 22 per cent below baseline (Target by 2010 was 10%)
Do you think they are going to get there ?
With different policy I am sure they could get much better results, but those changes may well cost a lot more money than current policy.
vonhosen said:
deeps said:
Von, we don't always agree but I respect your opinion. May I ask if you think the government are on course to achieve their target and are thus doing a good job with present policy?
It just strikes me like a hammer blow to the head, that a rise in car fatalities, a rise in cyclist fatalities and no reduction in pedestrian or HGV fatalities over the previous year, is not a good indication of an effective policy. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, maybe I'm missing something obvious?
It just strikes me like a hammer blow to the head, that a rise in car fatalities, a rise in cyclist fatalities and no reduction in pedestrian or HGV fatalities over the previous year, is not a good indication of an effective policy. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, maybe I'm missing something obvious?
Look at the figures,
The number of people killed or seriously injured was 33 per cent below the baseline (Target by 2010 is 40%)
The number of children killed or seriously injured was 49 per cent below the baseline (Target by 2010 is 50%)
The provisional estimate of the slight casualty rate was 22 per cent below baseline (Target by 2010 was 10%)
Do you think they are going to get there ?
With different policy I am sure they could get much better results, but those changes may well cost a lot more money than current policy.
Look at the figures more closely und compare with the hospital stats of treatments. Can depend on subjective medical opinion too as to whether to record as SI or Medium injury too und tick the appopriate box. Perhaps some manipulation even to record a bad fracture as Medium Injury und not SI to make figures look cosmetic too. Certainly hospital stats do not match up und you have to rememeber that the BMJ report has stamp of a University which does not lend its lofty und refined name of academic super-excellence to nonsense reports.
Slight injuries - they usually go to GP who does not always record as a road stat too so again we are under-reporting the slights. Some slightly injured do not even bother with the hassle of trying to get past the guard dog on the GP's reception desk nor waiting hours to see a proper nurse after screening within the target waiting period with junior trainee nurse either. (another way they manipulate to back up claims they have "delivered"... yet these same trainee nurses have no job when qualified due to poor NHS funding overall und sloppy pee-cee labour lad management in the system.
I would not pass any credence to these figures .. und the only reason why no deaths at cam sites was because few occurred there in first place at most of these sites. The accidents are still occurring at the less lucrative blackspots - und most of these accidents appear to have some unemployable yob - illegally behind wheel as never took a driving test or under age. Or someone who should not even be in the country ...These incidents are recorded on a daily basis in local press - sometimes we now see up to 7 different columns where we only used to read of one per day.
Now this ist down to lack of police officers und increased plastic ones (again a con to try to dupe the incredulous...
I know that the paper these stats are printed on are not of the quality to place in the littlest room in our house!
WildCat said:
vonhosen said:
deeps said:
Von, we don't always agree but I respect your opinion. May I ask if you think the government are on course to achieve their target and are thus doing a good job with present policy?
It just strikes me like a hammer blow to the head, that a rise in car fatalities, a rise in cyclist fatalities and no reduction in pedestrian or HGV fatalities over the previous year, is not a good indication of an effective policy. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, maybe I'm missing something obvious?
It just strikes me like a hammer blow to the head, that a rise in car fatalities, a rise in cyclist fatalities and no reduction in pedestrian or HGV fatalities over the previous year, is not a good indication of an effective policy. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, maybe I'm missing something obvious?
Look at the figures,
The number of people killed or seriously injured was 33 per cent below the baseline (Target by 2010 is 40%)
The number of children killed or seriously injured was 49 per cent below the baseline (Target by 2010 is 50%)
The provisional estimate of the slight casualty rate was 22 per cent below baseline (Target by 2010 was 10%)
Do you think they are going to get there ?
With different policy I am sure they could get much better results, but those changes may well cost a lot more money than current policy.
Look at the figures more closely und compare with the hospital stats of treatments. Can depend on subjective medical opinion too as to whether to record as SI or Medium injury too und tick the appopriate box. Perhaps some manipulation even to record a bad fracture as Medium Injury und not SI to make figures look cosmetic too. Certainly hospital stats do not match up und you have to rememeber that the BMJ report has stamp of a University which does not lend its lofty und refined name of academic super-excellence to nonsense reports.
Slight injuries - they usually go to GP who does not always record as a road stat too so again we are under-reporting the slights. Some slightly injured do not even bother with the hassle of trying to get past the guard dog on the GP's reception desk nor waiting hours to see a proper nurse after screening within the target waiting period with junior trainee nurse either. (another way they manipulate to back up claims they have "delivered"... yet these same trainee nurses have no job when qualified due to poor NHS funding overall und sloppy pee-cee labour lad management in the system.
I would not pass any credence to these figures .. und the only reason why no deaths at cam sites was because few occurred there in first place at most of these sites. The accidents are still occurring at the less lucrative blackspots - und most of these accidents appear to have some unemployable yob - illegally behind wheel as never took a driving test or under age. Or someone who should not even be in the country ...These incidents are recorded on a daily basis in local press - sometimes we now see up to 7 different columns where we only used to read of one per day.
Now this ist down to lack of police officers und increased plastic ones (again a con to try to dupe the incredulous...
I know that the paper these stats are printed on are not of the quality to place in the littlest room in our house!
That's government for you.
When you are making the rules & setting the targets you choose which figures to use.
Undoubtedly yes there are differences between stat19 figures & hospital figures, but then I'd imagine there were also such differences in the figures beteen those two in 1998.
Once you start with one source as your figures for a starting point & targets, you have to use that source for figures throughout.
You'll get no argument from me that more Police is a better (but costlier) option.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 1st July 09:37
Ach! Ist like the unemployment figures und everything else. I seem to recall Tory mob being challenged over vast differences und later the Labour mob over inflation figures...
Answer?
"We have a different way of recording this data"
Ist always one to pull wool over eyes und hoodwink.
Ja.. Mad Doc's stats.. his returns make his department look like it has God like qualities of bringing people back to life on paper. His death rate from these lurgies ist not changed that much..
Jaja
- he has better drugs to use to treat - perhaps than he used to have und research into these illnesses have led to better vaccines. But all he can get in some cases ist just a more comfortable quality of life before inevitable occurs.
Answer?
"We have a different way of recording this data"
Ist always one to pull wool over eyes und hoodwink.
Ja.. Mad Doc's stats.. his returns make his department look like it has God like qualities of bringing people back to life on paper. His death rate from these lurgies ist not changed that much..
Jaja
- he has better drugs to use to treat - perhaps than he used to have und research into these illnesses have led to better vaccines. But all he can get in some cases ist just a more comfortable quality of life before inevitable occurs.vonhosen said:
You'll get no argument from me that more Police is a better (but costlier) option.
You can get an awful lot of real police for the £100million annual DIRECT cost of speed cameras. Not to mention all the indirect costs. If you take government estimates on the cost of a roads fatality (£1.5m) and multiply by (1,200) the number of annual road deaths over target (where 'target' is a simple exponential extrapolation of earlier trends); we have a 'cost' of £1.8 billion on 'extra' fatalities alone.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff