How many crashes are "initiated" by speed alone?
Discussion
This question is one that had been bothering me for some considerable period of time, what with the one third lie being commonly spouted by scamera proponents and also our corrupted government.
In an attempt to find out the answer, i wrote to TRL and posed that very question. The answer was somewhat disturbing to say the least, and not what i would have expected.
TRL's response was "We have no data for speed as the initiator in crashes". Where does the one third lie come from?
I deliberately used the word "initiated" because i didnt want any contamination of the argument by those who have their own agendum.
Can the BIB's that frequent this site comment on TRL's statement?
Can they comment on the number of crashes that theyve attended, where speed was the "initiator", ie: no other cause?
Many thanks.
>>> Edited by deltaf on Saturday 14th June 14:46
In an attempt to find out the answer, i wrote to TRL and posed that very question. The answer was somewhat disturbing to say the least, and not what i would have expected.
TRL's response was "We have no data for speed as the initiator in crashes". Where does the one third lie come from?
I deliberately used the word "initiated" because i didnt want any contamination of the argument by those who have their own agendum.
Can the BIB's that frequent this site comment on TRL's statement?
Can they comment on the number of crashes that theyve attended, where speed was the "initiator", ie: no other cause?
Many thanks.
>>> Edited by deltaf on Saturday 14th June 14:46
This is a very good question and one which will be answered by Opinion only.
As ive already stated and im sure that others will reinforce this...speed is not the sole cause of Collisions.
Speaking from my own personal experiences and from many of the Fatal crashes that ive attended, its not always speed that has caused the crash in the first place but on most occasions death or serious injuries could have been reduced or avoided altogether if the initial speed had been lower in the first instance.
Obviously this does not apply to all crashes but certainly in my experience this seems to be the case.
This will also vary depending on location.....Cops investigating Fatal crashes in the cities will have a different view point to the ones investigating the same in the counties (country roads etc etc).
>> Edited by tonyrec on Saturday 14th June 15:01
Thats pretty much what i reckoned Tonyrec.
The speed kills argument to be honest, is a bit silly, and uninformed.
What ISNT being addressed is the ACTUAL accident causes, rather the emphasis is being put on a single measurable parameter, and then at the expense of going any further down the road to discovery, they simply hush up the real causes, ie: they dont have any real idea of them.
Covered under the "speed kills" banner, there seems to be NO attempt to prevent IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, an accident from occuring, whatever its cause.
Its not hard to see why theyre doing this. Its so much easier to try and force someone to slow down and STILL have an accident at a slower speed, although this dosent automatically rule out a death occuring!
The cause, the root cause is what SHOULD be concentrated on, not a possible secondary implication.
Amazing, i did that without a single rant!
The speed kills argument to be honest, is a bit silly, and uninformed.
What ISNT being addressed is the ACTUAL accident causes, rather the emphasis is being put on a single measurable parameter, and then at the expense of going any further down the road to discovery, they simply hush up the real causes, ie: they dont have any real idea of them.
Covered under the "speed kills" banner, there seems to be NO attempt to prevent IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, an accident from occuring, whatever its cause.
Its not hard to see why theyre doing this. Its so much easier to try and force someone to slow down and STILL have an accident at a slower speed, although this dosent automatically rule out a death occuring!
The cause, the root cause is what SHOULD be concentrated on, not a possible secondary implication.
Amazing, i did that without a single rant!
The speed kills line is far too generic.
The planet earth is moving at some horrendous speed round the sun yet we are still alive!
When I get up and go to the bathroom for a piss I am moving at a speed relative to my previous speed being nothing. If I trip over then my speed would have been a factor. Of course it would! Had I never had moved nothing would have ever happened!!!
In fact since I am travelling on a body of rock which is moving at a few million miles an hour round the solar system then I should have had the death penalty applied to me because technically I am always speeding.
The solution to the entire problem - Stop EVERYTHING. Freeze everything in the entire universe then speed can no longer be a problem therefore no one can die therefore there will be a very out of pocket chief constable who was probably thinking of making galactic laser vans to get the moon done for speeding.
Well if they can get anally retentive with the letter of the law - SO CAN I!
The planet earth is moving at some horrendous speed round the sun yet we are still alive!
When I get up and go to the bathroom for a piss I am moving at a speed relative to my previous speed being nothing. If I trip over then my speed would have been a factor. Of course it would! Had I never had moved nothing would have ever happened!!!
In fact since I am travelling on a body of rock which is moving at a few million miles an hour round the solar system then I should have had the death penalty applied to me because technically I am always speeding.
The solution to the entire problem - Stop EVERYTHING. Freeze everything in the entire universe then speed can no longer be a problem therefore no one can die therefore there will be a very out of pocket chief constable who was probably thinking of making galactic laser vans to get the moon done for speeding.
Well if they can get anally retentive with the letter of the law - SO CAN I!
It would be daft to try and deny that speed can be an exacerbating factor, but on the other hand it's clearly not the actual cause of most road accidents. Hence the current obsession with speed, and speed alone, will never bring about a dramatic reduction in RTAs. Only a complete package of education for all road users can do that. I guess a parallel to the ridiculously simplistic "speed kills" slogan would be to say that, in house fires, "smoke and flames kill". Well, yes they do, but only if a fire's been started in the first place. Smoke alarms and fire-retardant fabrics are all very well, but surely it's far better to teach numpties not to leave chip-pans unattended, let their kids play with matches etc...?
The Telegraph last September reported that:
Clearly not all Police forces are as easily convinced by the spin from central government, then.
Another interesting statistic which surfaced in February in a Department for Transport official report release on 11 February is that in the Thames Valley area, the number of deaths and serious injuries within 500 metres of a camera rose by 14%.
In other areas the numbers have fallen, so no doubt this is a result of the poor locations chosen by idiot councillors for political reasons, or the sites at which Thames Valley force choose to operate their live cameras. The only possible conclusion is that the political and financial motives are winning out over the actual purpose of the cameras, despite denials at every level.
"Surrey has just 18 speed cameras and has no plans to install any more. The neighbouring Thames Valley force has 300.
Chief Superintendent Bill Harding, who has devised the scheme drawing from knowledge gained on a psychology degree course, said he believed road casualties could be reduced through education rather than enforcement.
He had studied 1,500 accidents and found that excess speed played a part in only a few. He said that national campaigns promoting speed as the major factor in accidents was not borne out by his research. Some speed cameras had actually resulted in an increase in accidents, he added."
Clearly not all Police forces are as easily convinced by the spin from central government, then.
Another interesting statistic which surfaced in February in a Department for Transport official report release on 11 February is that in the Thames Valley area, the number of deaths and serious injuries within 500 metres of a camera rose by 14%.
In other areas the numbers have fallen, so no doubt this is a result of the poor locations chosen by idiot councillors for political reasons, or the sites at which Thames Valley force choose to operate their live cameras. The only possible conclusion is that the political and financial motives are winning out over the actual purpose of the cameras, despite denials at every level.
Speed has to be a major factor in any accident!
BUT, it is relevant to the drivers ability and concentration upto the the point of impact.
An able and skilled motorist should be able to avoid most circumstances in which an accident would occur. However a less able motorist will not have the foresight to plan his position and speed accordingly, therefore he will more likely put himself in a position that will exacerbate events. Therefore his speed will most likely be unappropriate for the conditions he finds himself in and will be a contributory factor because he cannot react in time.
Any occurence in which reactions are time dependent will be due to speed of travel.
If somebody tail ends you, it could be argued that they were traveling at an inappropriate speed for the distance they were from you.
When someone traves too close to the rear of my vehicle I slow down to an appropriate speed so that they can stop in an emergency. They either get the message or pass. Either way I am no longer in danger.
The biggest factor in any event is the skill of the driver. Therefore training everybody upto a standard has to be the better option.
Rant over!
BUT, it is relevant to the drivers ability and concentration upto the the point of impact.
An able and skilled motorist should be able to avoid most circumstances in which an accident would occur. However a less able motorist will not have the foresight to plan his position and speed accordingly, therefore he will more likely put himself in a position that will exacerbate events. Therefore his speed will most likely be unappropriate for the conditions he finds himself in and will be a contributory factor because he cannot react in time.
Any occurence in which reactions are time dependent will be due to speed of travel.
If somebody tail ends you, it could be argued that they were traveling at an inappropriate speed for the distance they were from you.
When someone traves too close to the rear of my vehicle I slow down to an appropriate speed so that they can stop in an emergency. They either get the message or pass. Either way I am no longer in danger.
The biggest factor in any event is the skill of the driver. Therefore training everybody upto a standard has to be the better option.
Rant over!
deltaf said: The speed kills argument to be honest, is a bit silly, and uninformed.
Its a quick and easy cliche. It doesn't tell the whole story.
Crashing at high speed kills. That is the message that should be put over.
I have not been to many accidents where excess speed was the sole or even the main contributory factor.
I have been to many serious and fatal crashes where excess speed has been a major contributory factor to the injuries and or deaths. In fact it is the most attributable factor to those circumstances.
What ISNT being addressed is the ACTUAL accident causes, rather the emphasis is being put on a single measurable parameter,
Bad driving which mainly consists of lack of attention to the task, misjudgement and a combination of going too fast for the circumstances at the time are all the major contributory factors in the anatomy of an accident.
and then at the expense of going any further down the road to discovery, they simply hush up the real causes, ie: they dont have any real idea of them.
Don't you believe it!
Millions of pounds are spent on high tech equipment and training to allow accident investigators to find out the exact causes of accidents. The majority of accident investigators will tell you that the majority of accidents are caused by an element of risk which goes wrong or plain lack of care.
Most serious accidents will have the exact causes known. Do you know that vehicle parts are sent to the Forensic laboratories across the country who can tell us things like whether a bulb was lit before the accident or broken because of it.
Covered under the "speed kills" banner, there seems to be NO attempt to prevent IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, an accident from occuring, whatever its cause.
In the first instance, if people were not travelling so fast and every body payed attention, then they would not happen.
Time to react is essential in the avoidance of accidents.
Lack of attention and excess speed by themselves cut that down considerable.
If you combine them at the same time, they are fatal!
Its not hard to see why theyre doing this. Its so much easier to try and force someone to slow down and STILL have an accident at a slower speed,
slower speed = time to react.
although this dosent automatically rule out a death occuring!
Agreed but it is much less likely than in high speed impacts.
You also forget about combined speeds.
Two vehicles travelling at 30mph colliding, same forces applied as if one had hit a stationary object at 60mph!
The cause, the root cause is what SHOULD be concentrated on, not a possible secondary implication.
Amazing, i did that without a single rant!
It is. It is well known that cutting speed causes less injury and the potential for death is lower dramatically.
The human body is capable of surviving impacts up to 40mph. After that the risk of serious injury resulting in death is inevitable. Ask any pathologist or accident investigator. You will be enlightened
deltaf said: And yet they do jack shit about it!
They do somethings about it.
Smoking = big sign on packets telling us that message smoking kills, smoking reduces fertility, and other such messages.
Speeding = big signs on lamp posts telling you to kill your speed, adverts on telly on buses etc speeding is a crime, being late is not
The messages are all around for those that want to be educated, the problem is that those that smoke/speed actually know of the dangers but either don't care and or make a decision that it won't happen to me.
Shame they don't put a sign big sign on lamp posts which incorporates both dangers.
kill your seed, smoke a fag at 30mph
That would save them money on all the education they are trying to put across
Theres far and away too much profit involved to curtail that activity, so they keep it going and milk it for all its worth. Never mind the misery and suffering it causes, a nice big fat payout is whats needed.Same regards speeding.
When someone dies as a result of an RTA it causes much more misery and suffering than £60 FPT and 3 points.
And that ends deltafs saturday night rarnt...lol.
Respect MC.
The big problem deltaf is that there are 30 million drivers of very differing standards. Some would not pass a DOT test if they were made to take it again. Others would sail through it. All of them including top racing drivers and class 1 Police drivers are all capable of mistakes.
Better drivers may take their training further and will mostly deal with the mistakes that others may make by using that skill, occasionally they get caught out when they were not perhaps concentrating as well as they should have been.
The reasons people are fined for their indiscretion is that to punish someone through their bank account will make them think about that course of action.
Just speaking to people about their conduct does little as with the smoking issue, they understand the message but chose to ignore it because it doesn't suuit them, they enjoy doing it and it will never happen to them.
I think I posted something earlier last week about punishment.
If the Govt were serious about stopping people speeding and reducing accidents and injury, they would increase the penalty for being caught to 6 points per offence and £300 fine. In effect you get one chance before losing your licence on totting up and a big hole in the cash flow to boot!
But again MC, the incorrect inference is that its the SPEED thats the cause.
As youve correctly stated, theyre not that interested in stopping people for speeding, as the long term benefits to their pockets outweigh all the disadvantages.
If as you say they actually wanted to stop folks driving over artificially low limits, that they put up the fines to 300 quid and only one chance, theyd not only take millions of ordinary drivers out of the loop, but theyd cut off their source of funds, long term, for a massive short term gain in profit.
Not exactly what a greedy self centred government wishes.
At the back of their "safety" protestations is simply a desire to tax, its as plain as can be.
Day of reckoning is coming.
As youve correctly stated, theyre not that interested in stopping people for speeding, as the long term benefits to their pockets outweigh all the disadvantages.
If as you say they actually wanted to stop folks driving over artificially low limits, that they put up the fines to 300 quid and only one chance, theyd not only take millions of ordinary drivers out of the loop, but theyd cut off their source of funds, long term, for a massive short term gain in profit.
Not exactly what a greedy self centred government wishes.
At the back of their "safety" protestations is simply a desire to tax, its as plain as can be.
Day of reckoning is coming.
The whole Speed Kills message is only a way of getting a more complex message accross, which is that high Speed accidents are more likely result in death.
IMHO Driving mistakes cause accidents, speed makes the accidents worse, and in some cases speed turns a driving mistake into an accident that wouldn't have occured at a lower speed. In such a case you could argue that speed caused the accident, when in fact the driving mistake initiated the sequence of events. That is presumably why speed is cited as a contributory factor in accidents.
Unfortunatley the Marketing people have sloganised the message to make more of an impact. In doing so they have left the message open to misinterpretation.
The government seem to be making only token efforts at improving driving standards compared to the amount of effort they are putting into reducing speeds. Perhaps when the death toll has levelled of for long enough the Govt will have to resort to trying to improve driving standards?
IMHO Driving mistakes cause accidents, speed makes the accidents worse, and in some cases speed turns a driving mistake into an accident that wouldn't have occured at a lower speed. In such a case you could argue that speed caused the accident, when in fact the driving mistake initiated the sequence of events. That is presumably why speed is cited as a contributory factor in accidents.
Unfortunatley the Marketing people have sloganised the message to make more of an impact. In doing so they have left the message open to misinterpretation.
The government seem to be making only token efforts at improving driving standards compared to the amount of effort they are putting into reducing speeds. Perhaps when the death toll has levelled of for long enough the Govt will have to resort to trying to improve driving standards?
if the govt have tried to improve driving standards i can honestly say that i havnt seen it!
i have never seen so many shit drivers on the roads,it amazes me how some of them are able to turn the ignition on without crashing.
i honestly think that the theory test is a waste of time,we all know that practical experience is FAR more benificial than sitting behind a desk and filling in a multiple choice question sheet.when i took my test on a friday afternoon i had to drive around southall and hayes,hayes was no problem but southall was a fecking nightmare but if you can drive in southall without your car being hit then you shouldnt have a prob anywhere else.
anyone else agree?
i have never seen so many shit drivers on the roads,it amazes me how some of them are able to turn the ignition on without crashing.
i honestly think that the theory test is a waste of time,we all know that practical experience is FAR more benificial than sitting behind a desk and filling in a multiple choice question sheet.when i took my test on a friday afternoon i had to drive around southall and hayes,hayes was no problem but southall was a fecking nightmare but if you can drive in southall without your car being hit then you shouldnt have a prob anywhere else.
anyone else agree?
TRL's response was "We have no data for speed as the initiator in crashes". Where does the one third lie come from?
Well, folks, the TRL doesn't know it's arse from its elbow.
TRL Report 323 was an experimental standardisation of police STATS 19 forms, listing primary, secondary and other causes. The survey was run by several police forces.
Excessive speed was shown to be a PRIMARY cause in around 7.4% of cases.
Not all police forces routinely collate such information. One exception is West Midlands police, whose annual reports always come in at 7% or less.
The website of one other force (can't remember which one) also listed causes for 2002, and "going too fast" was about the same.
The "one third" lie comes from the same TRL 323, but adds in headings such as "misjudged the speed of oncoming vehicle" and other even more spurious reasons that did not initiate the crash. All these items do add up to 33%, but only 7% constitute a primary cause.
The TRL has gone on record to rubbish these observations, saying that 323 was not intended to record crashes accurately, but to explore the feasibility of standard forms. This implies that the police investigations at crash scenes were incompetent. Utter nonsense.
As the crash doesn't happen if the PRIMARY cause is absent, all the other contributory causes are irrelevant in answering the question "how many crashes are caused by excessive speed?"
A revealing footnote :
When government started to use the "one-third" message, I posed as a researcher and asked the DfT where I could find road traffic accident casualty statistics. They replied "you've come to the right place, all the information you need is on the following websites," which they kindly listed.
None showed crash causes, so I asked the question. Back came the reply "oh, no records aren't kept for causes. Even if they were recorded, they wouldn't be accurate.........."
Official Gaff of the Year, don't you think.........??
When I exploited this, all hell must have broken loose in the DfT, and I was passed up to top brass pretty damn' sharply, who firmly emphasised that one-third was the true figure......and make no mistake.......but we can't explain why.
>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Sunday 15th June 22:56
cortinaman said: if you can drive in southall without your car being hit then you shouldnt have a prob anywhere else.
anyone else agree?
Yep, driven around southall and only just managed to come out unscathed.
I dont know why we dont have compulsory restesting at least every 5 years to retrain and educate us. When I first passed my test, 30mph felt like the speed of light.
My own car and 6 months later and 30mph did not seem that fast. I'll be honest and admit that I probably picked up some bad driving habits that could be ironed out if I was retested.
Problem nowadays is that people dont actually give a s
t, all they care about is their own little world and getting from A to B and sodding the impact they have on all other road users
If the Govt were serious about stopping people speeding and reducing accidents and injury, they would increase the penalty for being caught to 6 points per offence and £300 fine. In effect you get one chance before losing your licence on totting up and a big hole in the cash flow to boot!
Don't agree madcop. If they were really serious they would educate not fine and punish. Speeding is an absolute offense which IMHO is completely wrong. I had a discussion with a chap just the other day in which he stated he believed that speed killed. I pointed out that it was inappropiate speed and that travelling at 80mph on an uncrowded motorway is seen as exactly the same as traveling at 40mph in a built-up area but the consequences and risk are far different.
As you say there are people that wouldn't pass the DOT test. So why not use the fine to make sure they could? It would also get rid of the image of revenue cameras which IMHO the vast majority are. I do not believe that points makes that much difference to driving behaviour. I have know people with 9 points that are stil bad drivers. On the other side I have known people with no points taking advanced courses becoming much better drivers.
To finish with a final example. I teach, and I have to disapline. The fact of the matter is that you get better behaviour if you are seen to be reasonable and fair. I create the rules and make it clear why. If someone breaks the rules I talk to them about it and find methods of improving that behaviour, sometimes that will require a punishment but sometimes discretion will get better overall results. I do not put them straight into detention for two years regardless of the situation and neither do I abuse the power. This is why speed enforcement is failing. The aim is to improve safety for all but at the moment I see it only as a revenue generation scheme. 8000 speeding tickets a day and the number of accidents has not altered significantly over the last 3 years. The only way to improve is educate and use realistic and fair laws.
>> Edited by smeagol on Monday 16th June 00:21
If the Govt were serious about stopping people speeding and reducing accidents and injury, they would increase the penalty for being caught to 6 points per offence and £300 fine. In effect you get one chance before losing your licence on totting up and a big hole in the cash flow to boot!
Err, no.........
In effect, you get.......anarchy. Crack out the riot gear, mudcap...........
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff