South/Mid Wales police focus on speeding company car drivers
Discussion
South/Mid Wales police are focusing on speeding company car drivers for their latest gimmick, sorry, safety initiative: http://www.companycardriver.co.uk/news/article/?ar...
Jim Moore of the partnership said...
I wonder just what constitutes a "crash"? A light tap in a car park? A nudge of a bumper in a parking space? Obviously the word is intended to invoke images of "motorway carnage" but he cleverly doesn't say exactly what he means by it.
Jim Moore of the partnership said...
Jim Moore said:
Jim Moore, manager of Mid and South Wales Safety Camera Partnership, said: “As research shows, speeding is one of the contributory factors in many of the deaths and serious injuries we see on our roads every year.
“Unfortunately, a high percentage of these accidents involve drivers of company vehicles – each year, 65% of all corporately-driven vehicles in the UK are involved in a crash.”
Now we can argue about speeding being a "contributory factor in many", but what about "65% of all company vehicles are involved in a crash each year"? I've never seen that statistic before. It seems ridiculously high, even allowing for the higher mileage that business drivers do (suffer from). What is the percentage for non-company vehicles?“Unfortunately, a high percentage of these accidents involve drivers of company vehicles – each year, 65% of all corporately-driven vehicles in the UK are involved in a crash.”
I wonder just what constitutes a "crash"? A light tap in a car park? A nudge of a bumper in a parking space? Obviously the word is intended to invoke images of "motorway carnage" but he cleverly doesn't say exactly what he means by it.
SS2. said:
65% 
That has to be a mis-print or a mis-quote, surely ??
Last estimate I heard was about 1 in 10 cars were company owned - about 2.2 million.
That equates to 1,430,000 company car accidents per year or 3917 per day. And that from just one tenth of the UK's cars.. Bollox..
I suspect the issue is that some company vehicles are involved in several 'crashes' every year and some in none at all and the statistic just assumes each crash is a different vehicle eg suppose there are 100 company vehicles and 50 crashes = 50% of company vehicles have had a crash. However the truth is that 10 of these vehicles have had 5 crashes each ie in reality 10% of company vehicles have had a crash and 90% have been driven safely. The statistic probably includes all commercial vehicles as well which cover monster miles. What this statistic probably tells us is that there is likely to be a hardcore of rogue companies / drivers (probably at the hairy arsed end of the haulage industry) who have a lot of crashes who the police ought to be looking for. Also depends how you define a 'crash' probably includes simple car park scrapes etc. That has to be a mis-print or a mis-quote, surely ??Last estimate I heard was about 1 in 10 cars were company owned - about 2.2 million.
That equates to 1,430,000 company car accidents per year or 3917 per day. And that from just one tenth of the UK's cars.. Bollox..
Edited by djohnson on Friday 17th August 21:07
SS2. said:
65% That has to be a mis-print or a mis-quote, surely ??
Last estimate I heard was about 1 in 10 cars were company owned - about 2.2 million.
That equates to 1,430,000 company car accidents per year or 3917 per day. And that from just one tenth of the UK's cars.. Bollox..
About half of all new cars registered each year are bought by companies, but clearly many will be sold after typically 3 yrs into private hands. That has to be a mis-print or a mis-quote, surely ??Last estimate I heard was about 1 in 10 cars were company owned - about 2.2 million.
That equates to 1,430,000 company car accidents per year or 3917 per day. And that from just one tenth of the UK's cars.. Bollox..
Of course there's also a lot of people using their cars on business during the day - some of these are regular company users who have opted out of company cars and taken the cash (like me), others are people who don't even realise they're legally driving on business (like my teacher daughter, driving from one school to another during the school day).
Of course 'crash' will mean everything from a parking bump upwards, and 65% seems high, but it wouldn't shock me if it was correct.
So I emailed Jim Moore, asking for qualification of his assertion:
Mid and South Wales SCP said:
Your question has been forwarded to Mid & South Wales Safety Camera Partnership.
We will contact you within 20 days to let you know if it will feature on our visitors’ questions page.
Watch this space, but don't hold your breath..We will contact you within 20 days to let you know if it will feature on our visitors’ questions page.
catso said:
djohnson said:
I suspect the issue is that some company vehicles are involved in several 'crashes' every year and some in none at all and the statistic........
I suspect that it is a load of crap......Hang on!
Per the stats on my department .. surviving lurgies.. controlling MRSA .. waiting time to "consult me for an opinion"
Heck.. I come across as "giving God a run for His money "
Only .. errr.. OK - I admit it! It's garbage. My average waiting list on NHS amounts to 20 weeks just to see me for an opinion based on referral notes/patient history and some probing questions
By the time they get to see me - we are into "worry zone." I help my patients survive because I give the management absolute hell most of the time
But no.. I do not give "God a run for His money". I pray to God that He helps me help them though
, but 99% of the time "He" fails me and it more or les comes back to the paient's will to survive It has nothing to do with me. I help my patients by my opinion and prescribed treatment of this illness.
But the miracles of survival is more down to their/family efforts or Kimet and not mine.
I think I am trying to say that statistics are flawed - as we do not know the data behind the quantitative testing/sampling.
(My bold)
"Unfortunately, a high percentage of these accidents involve drivers of company vehicles"
Doesn't say the vehicle they WERE driving WAS a company vehicle tho', does it?
".. each year, 65% of all corporately-driven vehicles in the UK are involved in a crash."
Again doesn't ACTUALLY say the vehicle WAS a COMPANY VEHICLE...it says CORPORATELY DRIVEN...involved in a crash...That to my mind intimates any vehicle who's driver is covered under corporate insurance...doesn't HAVE to be a bona-fide company vehicle.
The guy is playing with words or some creative editing of what was said has been made .
"Unfortunately, a high percentage of these accidents involve drivers of company vehicles"
Doesn't say the vehicle they WERE driving WAS a company vehicle tho', does it?
".. each year, 65% of all corporately-driven vehicles in the UK are involved in a crash."
Again doesn't ACTUALLY say the vehicle WAS a COMPANY VEHICLE...it says CORPORATELY DRIVEN...involved in a crash...That to my mind intimates any vehicle who's driver is covered under corporate insurance...doesn't HAVE to be a bona-fide company vehicle.
The guy is playing with words or some creative editing of what was said has been made .
oldsoak said:
(My bold)
"Unfortunately, a high percentage of these accidents involve drivers of company vehicles"
Doesn't say the vehicle they WERE driving WAS a company vehicle tho', does it?
".. each year, 65% of all corporately-driven vehicles in the UK are involved in a crash."
Again doesn't ACTUALLY say the vehicle WAS a COMPANY VEHICLE...it says CORPORATELY DRIVEN...involved in a crash...That to my mind intimates any vehicle who's driver is covered under corporate insurance...doesn't HAVE to be a bona-fide company vehicle.
The guy is playing with words or some creative editing of what was said has been made .
That would include leased and hired vehicles as well it seems."Unfortunately, a high percentage of these accidents involve drivers of company vehicles"
Doesn't say the vehicle they WERE driving WAS a company vehicle tho', does it?
".. each year, 65% of all corporately-driven vehicles in the UK are involved in a crash."
Again doesn't ACTUALLY say the vehicle WAS a COMPANY VEHICLE...it says CORPORATELY DRIVEN...involved in a crash...That to my mind intimates any vehicle who's driver is covered under corporate insurance...doesn't HAVE to be a bona-fide company vehicle.
The guy is playing with words or some creative editing of what was said has been made .
Jasandjules said:
They will concentrate on these because the company will provide the information about the driver to avoid the points, therefore they will get their tax donation without any inconsiderate drivers asking for evidence etc... It is cheaper and easier that way.
But the named driver will still have to put his/her hand up for it won't they?If my name was put forward for paying a donation then I would as sure as hell ask for proof.Jasandjules said:
They will concentrate on these because the company will provide the information about the driver to avoid the points, therefore they will get their tax donation without any inconsiderate drivers asking for evidence etc... It is cheaper and easier that way.
You didn't actually read the article did you?herewego said:
Jasandjules said:
They will concentrate on these because the company will provide the information about the driver to avoid the points, therefore they will get their tax donation without any inconsiderate drivers asking for evidence etc... It is cheaper and easier that way.
You didn't actually read the article did you?Anyone whose byline is "thank you for slowing down" doesn't appreciate that good observation and defensive driving are safer than a rigid obedience to an arbitrary number.
Chrispy Porker said:
oldsoak said:
(My bold)
"Unfortunately, a high percentage of these accidents involve drivers of company vehicles"
Doesn't say the vehicle they WERE driving WAS a company vehicle tho', does it?
".. each year, 65% of all corporately-driven vehicles in the UK are involved in a crash."
Again doesn't ACTUALLY say the vehicle WAS a COMPANY VEHICLE...it says CORPORATELY DRIVEN...involved in a crash...That to my mind intimates any vehicle who's driver is covered under corporate insurance...doesn't HAVE to be a bona-fide company vehicle.
The guy is playing with words or some creative editing of what was said has been made .
That would include leased and hired vehicles as well it seems."Unfortunately, a high percentage of these accidents involve drivers of company vehicles"
Doesn't say the vehicle they WERE driving WAS a company vehicle tho', does it?
".. each year, 65% of all corporately-driven vehicles in the UK are involved in a crash."
Again doesn't ACTUALLY say the vehicle WAS a COMPANY VEHICLE...it says CORPORATELY DRIVEN...involved in a crash...That to my mind intimates any vehicle who's driver is covered under corporate insurance...doesn't HAVE to be a bona-fide company vehicle.
The guy is playing with words or some creative editing of what was said has been made .
It's really all about forcing companies to take responsibility for, and to control, their drivers. Some companies expect far too much of their employees who feel obliged to break speed limits rushing between appoinments etc. Others make employees drive too many hours as they won't pay for hotels overnight.
Another significant issue is that many drivers are using their cars for business purposes but don't have insurance cover for business.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff