They can't fugde this one (no comment from local SCP)
Discussion
POLICE and road safety bosses will tackle the rising death toll on Suffolk's roads with renewed vigour this year following a sharp rise in the number of people killed in crashes.
Final figures for 2006 show 47 people were killed on the county's roads in 40 separate collisions - 30 per cent higher than in the whole of 2005, which saw 36 killed in 33 accidents.
The grim death toll is the highest in Suffolk since 2003 and has dismayed road safety campaigners.
But Suffolk police pledged last night to do all it could to reduce collisions during the next 12 months.
Superintendent Mike Shields, the force's operations manager, said: “Suffolk Constabulary wants the people of Suffolk to be safe - safe in their homes, safe at work, safe on the streets and safe in their cars -and we will continue to work closely with our partner agencies to do what we can to reduce collisions on our roads in 2007.
“However, to make Suffolk's roads safe we need the support of all road users.
“By maintaining vehicles in a roadworthy condition, concentrating on the road, adhering to speed limits and not driving when tired or after consuming alcohol, drivers in particular can play a significant role in reducing the numbers of people killed or seriously injured.”
Joanna Spicer, Suffolk County Council's portfolio holder for public protection, described the increase as “disappointing”.
“The figures are not unexpected but are obviously a cause of concern,” she said.
“However, it's important we look at serious injuries as well as people killed and in fact on that indicator we are doing about the same as last year, there is not an increase.
“Every death is a tragedy and is taken very seriously. It's disappointing we have had an increase so far this year, particularly as on occasion more than one person has been killed in a road accident.”
The most horrific crash seen in the county last year was on the A12 at Blythburgh in July, which claimed the lives of three Lowestoft girls - 18-year-old Claire Stoddart and her 15-year-old sister Jennifer Stoddart, along with their close friend 18-year-old Carla Took - as well as Simon Bonner, 40, and Kim Abbott, 41, both from Yoxford.
Suffolk police teamed up with the county council to launch a hard-hitting campaign in the run-up to Christmas in an effort to stem the soaring number of deaths on the county's roads.
They said they wanted to “shock” people into realising how their bad driving habits could have fatal consequences.
One event saw firefighters stage a re-creation of a serious accident scene in Sudbury to demonstrate the trauma of a road crash to Christmas shoppers.
But road safety campaigners insisted last night even more needed to be done to make motorists graphically aware of the consequences of driving at dangerous speeds.
Brigitte Chaudhry, president of charity RoadPeace, said: “As a charity for road crash victims which has to deal with shattered families, we are saddened each time we hear that not only are the numbers of people killed or injured not going down but that on the contrary, they are rising.”
The number of fatalities on Suffolk's roads already sparked an inquiry from Suffolk Police Authority earlier this year.
Further initiatives are expected to be launched this year.
Road deaths by year
2002 43 (42 collisions)
2003 60 (50 collisions)
2004 42 (40 collisions)
2005 36 (33 collisions)
Final figures for 2006 show 47 people were killed on the county's roads in 40 separate collisions - 30 per cent higher than in the whole of 2005, which saw 36 killed in 33 accidents.
The grim death toll is the highest in Suffolk since 2003 and has dismayed road safety campaigners.
But Suffolk police pledged last night to do all it could to reduce collisions during the next 12 months.
Superintendent Mike Shields, the force's operations manager, said: “Suffolk Constabulary wants the people of Suffolk to be safe - safe in their homes, safe at work, safe on the streets and safe in their cars -and we will continue to work closely with our partner agencies to do what we can to reduce collisions on our roads in 2007.
“However, to make Suffolk's roads safe we need the support of all road users.
“By maintaining vehicles in a roadworthy condition, concentrating on the road, adhering to speed limits and not driving when tired or after consuming alcohol, drivers in particular can play a significant role in reducing the numbers of people killed or seriously injured.”
Joanna Spicer, Suffolk County Council's portfolio holder for public protection, described the increase as “disappointing”.
“The figures are not unexpected but are obviously a cause of concern,” she said.
“However, it's important we look at serious injuries as well as people killed and in fact on that indicator we are doing about the same as last year, there is not an increase.
“Every death is a tragedy and is taken very seriously. It's disappointing we have had an increase so far this year, particularly as on occasion more than one person has been killed in a road accident.”
The most horrific crash seen in the county last year was on the A12 at Blythburgh in July, which claimed the lives of three Lowestoft girls - 18-year-old Claire Stoddart and her 15-year-old sister Jennifer Stoddart, along with their close friend 18-year-old Carla Took - as well as Simon Bonner, 40, and Kim Abbott, 41, both from Yoxford.
Suffolk police teamed up with the county council to launch a hard-hitting campaign in the run-up to Christmas in an effort to stem the soaring number of deaths on the county's roads.
They said they wanted to “shock” people into realising how their bad driving habits could have fatal consequences.
One event saw firefighters stage a re-creation of a serious accident scene in Sudbury to demonstrate the trauma of a road crash to Christmas shoppers.
But road safety campaigners insisted last night even more needed to be done to make motorists graphically aware of the consequences of driving at dangerous speeds.
Brigitte Chaudhry, president of charity RoadPeace, said: “As a charity for road crash victims which has to deal with shattered families, we are saddened each time we hear that not only are the numbers of people killed or injured not going down but that on the contrary, they are rising.”
The number of fatalities on Suffolk's roads already sparked an inquiry from Suffolk Police Authority earlier this year.
Further initiatives are expected to be launched this year.
Road deaths by year
2002 43 (42 collisions)
2003 60 (50 collisions)
2004 42 (40 collisions)
2005 36 (33 collisions)
cuneus said:
Joanna Spicer, Suffolk County Council's portfolio holder for public protection, described the increase as “disappointing”.
“The figures are not unexpected but are obviously a cause of concern,” she said.
“The figures are not unexpected but are obviously a cause of concern,” she said.
Uh, why are they not unexpected? Surely they should be protecting us, as per Ms Spicer's job title..... Oh dear.... I do think the increase is rather more than "disappointing" for those who died....
It's simply outrageous the way they've crucified that A12 north of Ipswich with unnecessary speed limit tinkering. Considering it's a trunk route to/from Lowestoft/Gt Yarmouth and getting up and down it consists of miles of stationary traffic as lorries grind to a halt then take forever to get back up to speed.
Add to the a smattering of morons who'll stick to the speed limit less a bit just to be safe and you get frustration leading to accidents.
Apart from their attrocious approach to "road safety" that is obviously failing big style with tragic results, the local planners are also responsible for ensuring no serious businesses would consider setting up north of Ipswich thereby guaranteeing that any amount of regeneration money spent in those areas will achieve nothing more than a cosmetic improvement.
So who's going to answer for this abject failure? Nobody, that's who. Because speed kills dontcha know.
SM
Add to the a smattering of morons who'll stick to the speed limit less a bit just to be safe and you get frustration leading to accidents.
Apart from their attrocious approach to "road safety" that is obviously failing big style with tragic results, the local planners are also responsible for ensuring no serious businesses would consider setting up north of Ipswich thereby guaranteeing that any amount of regeneration money spent in those areas will achieve nothing more than a cosmetic improvement.
So who's going to answer for this abject failure? Nobody, that's who. Because speed kills dontcha know.
SM
Edited by supermono on Tuesday 2nd January 14:57
Superintendent Mike Shields said:
“Suffolk Constabulary wants the people of Suffolk to be safe - safe in their homes, safe at work, safe on the streets and safe in their cars -and we will continue to work closely with our partner agencies to do what we can to reduce collisions on our roads in 2007.
“However, to make Suffolk's roads safe we need the support of all road users.
“By maintaining vehicles in a roadworthy condition, concentrating on the road, adhering to speed limits and not driving when tired or after consuming alcohol, drivers in particular can play a significant role in reducing the numbers of people killed or seriously injured.”
“However, to make Suffolk's roads safe we need the support of all road users.
“By maintaining vehicles in a roadworthy condition, concentrating on the road, adhering to speed limits and not driving when tired or after consuming alcohol, drivers in particular can play a significant role in reducing the numbers of people killed or seriously injured.”
Hi Mike. You don't mind if I call you Mike, so you? Because I felt a kind of connection there when I read your words.
Mike, can I just say that perhaps if people spent their time lifting their visibility outside the car and not mindlessly focusing on an arbitrary speed limit that seems to change whenever a cop is having a bad day with his haemorrhoids, they might drive a little better and a little more safely? Perhaps if they were encouraged to spend all their time watching the road and what was going on around them, they might be better drivers. Also, a little courtesy never goes amiss, could you ask people that if they're not going to have that overtake, could they be so kind as to leave a little gap so I can safely overtake them and then safely overtake the guy they don't want to overtake?
Thanks, Mike.
Let's put the 2006 total in line with the others:
So 2006 was higher than 2005, 2004 and 2002 but lower than 2003. Is there a trend apparent in those 5 numbers? I don't know what previous years looked like, but I think it's very possible that there is no trend here. What we probably have is a general sine curve that goes up and down over the years independent of any actions anyone takes. Therefore figures in 2007 WILL be down (Jan 2008 headline: "Suffolk police celebrate KSI reduction following vigourous actions in 2007"
, and 2008 WILL be up again (2009 headline: "Suffolk police promise further vigourous actions to reduce road carnage following rise in 2008".
BTW, what did all the agencies say about the 2003 numbers?
cuneus said:
Road deaths by year
2002 43 (42 collisions)
2003 60 (50 collisions)
2004 42 (40 collisions)
2005 36 (33 collisions)
2006 47 (40 collisions)
2002 43 (42 collisions)
2003 60 (50 collisions)
2004 42 (40 collisions)
2005 36 (33 collisions)
2006 47 (40 collisions)
So 2006 was higher than 2005, 2004 and 2002 but lower than 2003. Is there a trend apparent in those 5 numbers? I don't know what previous years looked like, but I think it's very possible that there is no trend here. What we probably have is a general sine curve that goes up and down over the years independent of any actions anyone takes. Therefore figures in 2007 WILL be down (Jan 2008 headline: "Suffolk police celebrate KSI reduction following vigourous actions in 2007"
, and 2008 WILL be up again (2009 headline: "Suffolk police promise further vigourous actions to reduce road carnage following rise in 2008". BTW, what did all the agencies say about the 2003 numbers?
puggit said:
They can and are already fudging this...
council safety bod said:
However, it's important we look at serious injuries as well as people killed and in fact on that indicator we are doing about the same as last year, there is not an increase.
Somebody should ask her what the hospital figures are for those injuries.
Parrot of Doom said:
puggit said:
They can and are already fudging this...
council safety bod said:
However, it's important we look at serious injuries as well as people killed and in fact on that indicator we are doing about the same as last year, there is not an increase.
Somebody should ask her what the hospital figures are for those injuries.
Oh dear, there were more people dead, but less with cuts-and-abrasions, so that's all right then! What a buch of sorry tossers!
Are there still largish numbers of US service personnel barrelling around in Suffolk or have they now abandoned all the bases and moved on to other places?
I seem to recall it was not too many years ago when the new arrival families would venture off base and regularly find some idiot driving at them on the wrong side of the road - as they thought of it.
Or discovered that their large auto really was designed for straight and wide roads rather than narrow roads with bends.
Of course any incidents which result in a higher than usual casualty count - like the one mentioned in the report - do tend to skew the figures and lead to a lot of hand wringing. It happaned a few years ago when Leicestershire had a particularly poor year after a great start (iirc). That about 6 or 7 people died when a couple of armoured vehicles came off a transporter and found the central barrier lacking enough strength to stop them passing through it was certainly bad luck and very disadvantageous to that years' numbers.
I seem to recall it was not too many years ago when the new arrival families would venture off base and regularly find some idiot driving at them on the wrong side of the road - as they thought of it.
Or discovered that their large auto really was designed for straight and wide roads rather than narrow roads with bends.
Of course any incidents which result in a higher than usual casualty count - like the one mentioned in the report - do tend to skew the figures and lead to a lot of hand wringing. It happaned a few years ago when Leicestershire had a particularly poor year after a great start (iirc). That about 6 or 7 people died when a couple of armoured vehicles came off a transporter and found the central barrier lacking enough strength to stop them passing through it was certainly bad luck and very disadvantageous to that years' numbers.
Just to fill in some missing numbers. I think we have a pretty randomised data set which is why I find the claims about casualty reduction from the establishment so onerous
1992 34
1993 45
1994 49
1995 35
1996 59
1997 43
1998 23
1999 48
2000 56
2001 53
2002 43
2003 60
2004 42
2005 36
2006 47
1992 34
1993 45
1994 49
1995 35
1996 59
1997 43
1998 23
1999 48
2000 56
2001 53
2002 43
2003 60
2004 42
2005 36
2006 47
Edited by cuneus on Tuesday 2nd January 21:56
Good post cuneus.
The median figure is 45 and the average 44.86667 for the numbers in your post which suggests that, all things taken into account, 2006 was a pretty average year.
Quite successful if the increase in traffic in Suffolk is typical of the country as a whole over the period. Especially given the location of a major port for the continent and the commercial traffic that brings.
It's just a pity that the people who accept responsibility for representing officialdom to the public don't have the nous to present things as they are.
The median figure is 45 and the average 44.86667 for the numbers in your post which suggests that, all things taken into account, 2006 was a pretty average year.
Quite successful if the increase in traffic in Suffolk is typical of the country as a whole over the period. Especially given the location of a major port for the continent and the commercial traffic that brings.
It's just a pity that the people who accept responsibility for representing officialdom to the public don't have the nous to present things as they are.
supermono said:
It's simply outrageous the way they've crucified that A12 north of Ipswich with unnecessary speed limit tinkering. Considering it's a trunk route to/from Lowestoft/Gt Yarmouth and getting up and down it consists of miles of stationary traffic as lorries grind to a halt then take forever to get back up to speed.
Add to the a smattering of morons who'll stick to the speed limit less a bit just to be safe and you get frustration leading to accidents.
Add to the a smattering of morons who'll stick to the speed limit less a bit just to be safe and you get frustration leading to accidents.
Absolutely, it's so obvious that lowering limits below that of a reasonable speed for the road will always lead to a higher rate of frustrated overtakes, why can't they see that???
LongQ said:
Are there still largish numbers of US service personnel barrelling around in Suffolk or have they now abandoned all the bases and moved on to other places?
I seem to recall it was not too many years ago when the new arrival families would venture off base and regularly find some idiot driving at them on the wrong side of the road - as they thought of it.
Or discovered that their large auto really was designed for straight and wide roads rather than narrow roads with bends.
Of course any incidents which result in a higher than usual casualty count - like the one mentioned in the report - do tend to skew the figures and lead to a lot of hand wringing. It happaned a few years ago when Leicestershire had a particularly poor year after a great start (iirc). That about 6 or 7 people died when a couple of armoured vehicles came off a transporter and found the central barrier lacking enough strength to stop them passing through it was certainly bad luck and very disadvantageous to that years' numbers.
I seem to recall it was not too many years ago when the new arrival families would venture off base and regularly find some idiot driving at them on the wrong side of the road - as they thought of it.
Or discovered that their large auto really was designed for straight and wide roads rather than narrow roads with bends.
Of course any incidents which result in a higher than usual casualty count - like the one mentioned in the report - do tend to skew the figures and lead to a lot of hand wringing. It happaned a few years ago when Leicestershire had a particularly poor year after a great start (iirc). That about 6 or 7 people died when a couple of armoured vehicles came off a transporter and found the central barrier lacking enough strength to stop them passing through it was certainly bad luck and very disadvantageous to that years' numbers.
yup, they're still here, but only on 2 large airbases.
i wonder if the other factor would be the ammount of immigrants in the area?
a couple of years ago it was mostly portugese, but now its mostly eastern europeans, combine this with the americans, and thats a hell of a lot of left hookers on the road in this part of the world.
Dunno if it's suffolk or norfolk, but there is about 3.5 miles of traffic cones in a bizarre 40mph limited dual carraigeway on the A11 (Attleborough?) that's pretty dam dangerous.
Quite why a coned dual carraigeway is a 40 and a regular two-way is 60 I'll never know, but I do know how at the end I was really struggling to stay awake.
It's quite possible that the crash on the A14 I saw later (suffolk? - heading west toward Newmarket, 2:30am ish Jan 1) was caused by someone asleep at the wheel, as far as I could see that's the only way they could have crashed. If they'd come through that coned route I wouldn't be surprised at all.
I expect RTAs to continue to climb while people are pumped with 'speed' b0ll0x dis-information, especially as basic safety measures (barriers etc) seem to be going out of fashion in favour of stupid limits and money cameras.
Quite why a coned dual carraigeway is a 40 and a regular two-way is 60 I'll never know, but I do know how at the end I was really struggling to stay awake.
It's quite possible that the crash on the A14 I saw later (suffolk? - heading west toward Newmarket, 2:30am ish Jan 1) was caused by someone asleep at the wheel, as far as I could see that's the only way they could have crashed. If they'd come through that coned route I wouldn't be surprised at all.
I expect RTAs to continue to climb while people are pumped with 'speed' b0ll0x dis-information, especially as basic safety measures (barriers etc) seem to be going out of fashion in favour of stupid limits and money cameras.
Peter Ward said:
Let's put the 2006 total in line with the others:
So 2006 was higher than 2005, 2004 and 2002 but lower than 2003. Is there a trend apparent in those 5 numbers?
cuneus said:
Road deaths by year
2002 43 (42 collisions)
2003 60 (50 collisions)
2004 42 (40 collisions)
2005 36 (33 collisions)
2006 47 (40 collisions)
2002 43 (42 collisions)
2003 60 (50 collisions)
2004 42 (40 collisions)
2005 36 (33 collisions)
2006 47 (40 collisions)
So 2006 was higher than 2005, 2004 and 2002 but lower than 2003. Is there a trend apparent in those 5 numbers?
Some quick analysis: best fit curve (curve type didn't make any significant difference):
But.....
cuneus said:
Just to fill in some missing numbers. I think we have a pretty randomised data set which is why I find the claims about casualty reduction from the establishment so onerous
1992 34
1993 45
1994 49
1995 35
1996 59
1997 43
1998 23
1999 48
2000 56
2001 53
2002 43
2003 60
2004 42
2005 36
2006 47
1992 34
1993 45
1994 49
1995 35
1996 59
1997 43
1998 23
1999 48
2000 56
2001 53
2002 43
2003 60
2004 42
2005 36
2006 47
Best fit curve (again curve type didn't make any significant difference):
Hmmmm.....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff