One third lie website
Discussion
I visited www.onethirdlie.org.uk and decided to drop an email of protest to the Department of Transport over its apparent report. Anywaz here is the reply I got from them:
Thank you for your email of 21 August concerning information contained
on the website www.onethirdlie.org.uk.
The Department is aware of this website and one or two others like it
which, for whatever reason seek to disparage Departmental policy on
speed management. There is little that can be done if individuals wish to
create websites in order to run spurious stories and campaigns about
speed. However, the Department would take issue with the statement that
this particular website proves the Department exaggerates the
relationship between speed and accidents. This is simply not true. It therefore
might be helpful if I provide some background into Departmental policy on
road traffic speed.
Around 3,400 people are killed and a further 37,000 are seriously
injured every year as a result of road traffic accidents. This is clearly
unacceptable and quite simply would not be tolerated on any other form of
transport. Contrary to the view held in this website, research shows a
clear link between increased vehicle speeds and the risk of accidents.
The TRL Report 323 vilified in the website is entitled "A new system of
recording contributory factors in road accidents" and is about
identifying contributory factors in accidents in the context of the new
accident data recording system brought into STATS 19, the form used by the
police at the scene of a road traffic accident. Much of the confusion and
disagreement arises because excessive speed as a stand alone
contributory factor is shown in the context of the report to occur in about 7% of
accidents, whilst the Department would normally quote about one third.
This apparent disparity is easily explained.
In addition to the stand alone factor, excessive and inappropriate
speed is clearly a factor in and may be coded in the report for any of the
following reasons; sudden braking; careless/reckless driving; following
too close; behaviour – in a hurry; loss of control of a vehicle; poor
overtaking, etc.
When these figures are added together, the report effectively confirms
the "one third" figure. The relatively low incidence of excessive speed
as a stand alone factor in the report suggests that where other factors
such as those above are coded, the police may consider it unnecessary
to code excessive speed as well. The Department is addressing this in
revised guidance developed with the police for officers that complete
STATS 19 forms.
It is interesting that doubters, including those with websites such as
the one you have highlighted tend not to mention any other reports from
TRL and other research organisations on speed and accident risk, of
which there are many. For anyone seeking to draw meaningful conclusions
from research a full search of the available literature is essential. TRL
has published a comprehensive report on speed and accident causation,
TRL report number 421 called "The effects of drivers' speed on the
frequency of road accidents". Also published is TRL report 440, called "The
characteristics of speeders". Both were published in April 2000 to
support the launch of the speed review and Road Safety Strategy, and full
references appear in the Speed Review.
Thus, effective speed management policy is aimed purely at reducing
road accidents, deaths and serious injuries. Contrary to this website's
view, safety cameras to enforce speed limits are an important element of
that policy. It has been developed over many years and is based on
sound published research both at home and abroad. If sound evidence were
published to throw doubt on the effectiveness of cameras the Department
would of course take account of it.
There exist three pieces of key research into camera use. The two-year
evaluation report of the safety camera cost recovery system was
published in February this year. It found a 35% reduction in people killed or
seriously injured at camera sites, equating to around 280 people in the
8 areas covered by the study. In 1996 the Home Office published a cost
benefit analysis of traffic light and speed cameras that showed a 28%
reduction in accidents at speed camera sites. In 1997 the London
Accident Analysis Unit published an analysis of accident and casualty data 36
months after the implementation of a number of speed cameras in West
London with 36 months worth of "before" data. The key finding was that
fatal accidents reduced from 62 in the 3 year before the period to 19 in
the three year after period. A saving of at least 43 lives.
These reports, all undertaken by independent researchers, consultants
or academic organisations are published works, freely available and open
to scrutiny. None has been questioned by experts in the field.
Those opposed to camera use make assertions about their being
ineffective but these are simply not supported by any reliable evidence. The
Department will not alter policy while all the available and reliable
evidence points firmly to excessive and inappropriate speed remaining a
serious causation factor in accidents resulting in death and injury, and
enforcement cameras continue to play a significant role in reducing
accidents on our roads.
Ultimately the Department has nothing to gain from exaggerating the
effects of speeding. Its only concern is to reduce the number of accidents
that occur on our roads and make them a safer place for all road users.
As I have mentioned above, around 3,400 people are killed every year on
our roads. The senseless loss of life, grieving families and cost to
the NHS is something that no Government can ignore.
I hope this is helpful.
Ian Edwards
Thank you for your email of 21 August concerning information contained
on the website www.onethirdlie.org.uk.
The Department is aware of this website and one or two others like it
which, for whatever reason seek to disparage Departmental policy on
speed management. There is little that can be done if individuals wish to
create websites in order to run spurious stories and campaigns about
speed. However, the Department would take issue with the statement that
this particular website proves the Department exaggerates the
relationship between speed and accidents. This is simply not true. It therefore
might be helpful if I provide some background into Departmental policy on
road traffic speed.
Around 3,400 people are killed and a further 37,000 are seriously
injured every year as a result of road traffic accidents. This is clearly
unacceptable and quite simply would not be tolerated on any other form of
transport. Contrary to the view held in this website, research shows a
clear link between increased vehicle speeds and the risk of accidents.
The TRL Report 323 vilified in the website is entitled "A new system of
recording contributory factors in road accidents" and is about
identifying contributory factors in accidents in the context of the new
accident data recording system brought into STATS 19, the form used by the
police at the scene of a road traffic accident. Much of the confusion and
disagreement arises because excessive speed as a stand alone
contributory factor is shown in the context of the report to occur in about 7% of
accidents, whilst the Department would normally quote about one third.
This apparent disparity is easily explained.
In addition to the stand alone factor, excessive and inappropriate
speed is clearly a factor in and may be coded in the report for any of the
following reasons; sudden braking; careless/reckless driving; following
too close; behaviour – in a hurry; loss of control of a vehicle; poor
overtaking, etc.
When these figures are added together, the report effectively confirms
the "one third" figure. The relatively low incidence of excessive speed
as a stand alone factor in the report suggests that where other factors
such as those above are coded, the police may consider it unnecessary
to code excessive speed as well. The Department is addressing this in
revised guidance developed with the police for officers that complete
STATS 19 forms.
It is interesting that doubters, including those with websites such as
the one you have highlighted tend not to mention any other reports from
TRL and other research organisations on speed and accident risk, of
which there are many. For anyone seeking to draw meaningful conclusions
from research a full search of the available literature is essential. TRL
has published a comprehensive report on speed and accident causation,
TRL report number 421 called "The effects of drivers' speed on the
frequency of road accidents". Also published is TRL report 440, called "The
characteristics of speeders". Both were published in April 2000 to
support the launch of the speed review and Road Safety Strategy, and full
references appear in the Speed Review.
Thus, effective speed management policy is aimed purely at reducing
road accidents, deaths and serious injuries. Contrary to this website's
view, safety cameras to enforce speed limits are an important element of
that policy. It has been developed over many years and is based on
sound published research both at home and abroad. If sound evidence were
published to throw doubt on the effectiveness of cameras the Department
would of course take account of it.
There exist three pieces of key research into camera use. The two-year
evaluation report of the safety camera cost recovery system was
published in February this year. It found a 35% reduction in people killed or
seriously injured at camera sites, equating to around 280 people in the
8 areas covered by the study. In 1996 the Home Office published a cost
benefit analysis of traffic light and speed cameras that showed a 28%
reduction in accidents at speed camera sites. In 1997 the London
Accident Analysis Unit published an analysis of accident and casualty data 36
months after the implementation of a number of speed cameras in West
London with 36 months worth of "before" data. The key finding was that
fatal accidents reduced from 62 in the 3 year before the period to 19 in
the three year after period. A saving of at least 43 lives.
These reports, all undertaken by independent researchers, consultants
or academic organisations are published works, freely available and open
to scrutiny. None has been questioned by experts in the field.
Those opposed to camera use make assertions about their being
ineffective but these are simply not supported by any reliable evidence. The
Department will not alter policy while all the available and reliable
evidence points firmly to excessive and inappropriate speed remaining a
serious causation factor in accidents resulting in death and injury, and
enforcement cameras continue to play a significant role in reducing
accidents on our roads.
Ultimately the Department has nothing to gain from exaggerating the
effects of speeding. Its only concern is to reduce the number of accidents
that occur on our roads and make them a safer place for all road users.
As I have mentioned above, around 3,400 people are killed every year on
our roads. The senseless loss of life, grieving families and cost to
the NHS is something that no Government can ignore.
I hope this is helpful.
Ian Edwards
Lucozade, I hope you intend to write back and point out that sudden braking etc. are not attributable to speed, but rather poor driving and observation etc.. I also would point out that overall KSI figures have not improved at all since cameras were introduced (IIRC) therefofre all they are doing is moving the problem somewhere else.
Of the KSI figures I would also like to discount around 90% of pedestrian figures, because they should not be on the road in the first place. I would accept pedestrian casualty figures from pedestrians on the pavement, on a proper crossing at the proper time etc, but not otherwise.
Go for it!
Of the KSI figures I would also like to discount around 90% of pedestrian figures, because they should not be on the road in the first place. I would accept pedestrian casualty figures from pedestrians on the pavement, on a proper crossing at the proper time etc, but not otherwise.
Go for it!
lucozade said:
In addition to the stand alone factor, excessive and inappropriate
speed is clearly a factor in and may be coded in the report for any of the
following reasons; sudden braking; careless/reckless driving; following
too close; behaviour – in a hurry; loss of control of a vehicle; poor
overtaking, etc.
When these figures are added together, the report effectively confirms
the "one third" figure. The relatively low incidence of excessive speed
as a stand alone factor in the report suggests that where other factors
such as those above are coded, the police may consider it unnecessary
to code excessive speed as well. The Department is addressing this in
revised guidance developed with the police for officers that complete
STATS 19 forms.
Surely this is cobblers? If I drive in heavy traffic on the M25 at 60mph 10ft off the back bumper of the guy in front, and he stops suddenly the accident is not due to excessive speed. Its due to me being stupid and being too close.
If I crash my car because I slam on the brakes, and skid its not necessarily because of excessive speed, it could be because someone/thing has come out in front of me.
If I am driving carelessy or recklessly then why is my speed relevant? Is it safe to drive carelessly or recklessly as long as I only do 30mph?
I can misjudge the overtaking of a tractor just as easily, and possibly more so due to impatience, as when I am overtaking a numpty doing 56mph.
I cam be in a hurry that deson't mean I am driving at excessive speeds, just that I am held up by all the parents taking their kids to school.
lucozade said:Why does that sound like an echo of what TB and cronies said about Iraq and the 'dodgy dossier'? - Streaky
[snip] "... Ultimately the Department has nothing to gain from exaggerating the effects of speeding. Its only concern is to reduce the number of accidents that occur on our roads and make them a safer place for all road users. ..."
In response to "Those opposed to camera use make assertions about their being
ineffective but these are simply not supported by any reliable evidence." I suggest you reply with the stats from:
www.safespeed.org.uk/hypothecation.html (bottom section which shows that KSI figures for scamerships fell slower than non-scamerships) and also
www.safespeed.org.uk/stats/index.html which shows how deaths on the roads have increased since cameras came in to being....
I'd also stick it to them that KSI figures are down only due to improvements in car design....
ineffective but these are simply not supported by any reliable evidence." I suggest you reply with the stats from:
www.safespeed.org.uk/hypothecation.html (bottom section which shows that KSI figures for scamerships fell slower than non-scamerships) and also
www.safespeed.org.uk/stats/index.html which shows how deaths on the roads have increased since cameras came in to being....
I'd also stick it to them that KSI figures are down only due to improvements in car design....
lucozade said:
Around 3,400 people are killed and a further 37,000 are seriously
injured every year as a result of road traffic accidents. This is clearly
unacceptable and quite simply would not be tolerated on any other form of
transport.
Wouldn't it?
How many people are qualified to drive compared to how many people are qualified to fly, or drive a train? How many miles are driven in cars compared to miles done by trains or planes? How many road vehicles are there compared to trains or planes?
Comparision cannot be made with buses and coaches as they are on the raod so presumably the road traffic deaths and injuries already include their accidents!
chrisgr31 said:
Around 3,400 people are killed and a further 37,000 are seriously
injured every year as a result of road traffic accidents. This is clearly
unacceptable and quite simply would not be tolerated on any other form of
transport.
Wouldn't it?
How many people are qualified to drive compared to how many people are qualified to fly, or drive a train? How many miles are driven in cars compared to miles done by trains or planes? How many road vehicles are there compared to trains or planes?
Comparision cannot be made with buses and coaches as they are on the raod so presumably the road traffic deaths and injuries already include their accidents!
More to the point, just about every other country in the world has worse numbers than this, and don't seem to find it the end of the world.....
That might be just the french though.
I hope you will also point out that this supposed huge burden on the NHS is a small fraction of the 120,000 people who die from smoking related disease every year.
What utter bo77ocks.
How can excessive speed "clearly be a factor" in sudden braking? If a cat runs out into the road in front of your car, you have have to brake hard irrespective of the speed you were doing (unless you hate cats).
Following too close; Well, you could follow someone very closely at 1mph, again speed not a clear factor.
Behaviour- in a hurry; well, yes that's rather intimately tied into excessive speed isn't it, they are one and the same thing. Dozy prat.
Loss of control of vehicle; The least cretinous answer of the lot, but excessive speed isn't always a clear factor in loss of control of a vehicle. Hitting patches of cow poo thoughtfully left by farmers, or diesel slicks left by public transport can cause loss of control at what would otheriwse be a totaly safe speed.
Poor overtaking; The worst and most dangerous overtaking behaviour is performed by those numpties that woudn't consider dropping down from fifth and would rather gently cruise past into the face of oncomming traffic.
I really though they could do better than that.
>> Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 3rd September 15:13
some numpty said:
In addition to the stand alone factor, excessive and inappropriate speed is clearly a factor in and may be coded in the report for any of the following reasons; sudden braking; careless/reckless driving; following too close; behaviour – in a hurry; loss of control of a vehicle; poor overtaking, etc.
What utter bo77ocks.
How can excessive speed "clearly be a factor" in sudden braking? If a cat runs out into the road in front of your car, you have have to brake hard irrespective of the speed you were doing (unless you hate cats).
Following too close; Well, you could follow someone very closely at 1mph, again speed not a clear factor.
Behaviour- in a hurry; well, yes that's rather intimately tied into excessive speed isn't it, they are one and the same thing. Dozy prat.
Loss of control of vehicle; The least cretinous answer of the lot, but excessive speed isn't always a clear factor in loss of control of a vehicle. Hitting patches of cow poo thoughtfully left by farmers, or diesel slicks left by public transport can cause loss of control at what would otheriwse be a totaly safe speed.
Poor overtaking; The worst and most dangerous overtaking behaviour is performed by those numpties that woudn't consider dropping down from fifth and would rather gently cruise past into the face of oncomming traffic.
I really though they could do better than that.
>> Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 3rd September 15:13
Sorry to be picky - but I believe the law says that you shouldn't break for a cat (I'm a cat fan...). However legally you must try and avoid hitting dogs, horses etc. Also a cat owner isn't responsible for it's actions, whereas a dog/horse owner is...
Being in a hurry... So if I pull out of a side road without looking cos I'm in a hurry, I'm speeding am I?
Being in a hurry... So if I pull out of a side road without looking cos I'm in a hurry, I'm speeding am I?
Mr2Mike said:
Behaviour- in a hurry; well, yes that's rather intimately tied into excessive speed isn't it, they are one and the same thing. Dozy prat.
Why are they the same thing? You cn be in a hurry but not speeding or doing an excessive speed. Indeed you can be in a hurry and stationary on the M25 most days!
My guess is for "Behaviour-in a hurry" should really be called "Driving without due care & attention" as I assume what they mean.
I bet most people are in a hurry on most journeys, because quite simply they want to get to their destination. However that doesn't maen that most people have an accident doing it.
chrisgr31 said:Do they also include train/road vehicle accidents (eg. on level crossings or where drivers leave the road and crash into a train? Where are these stats counted? I wouldn't be surprised to find them counted more than once - Streaky
[snip]
Comparision cannot be made with buses and coaches as they are on the raod so presumably the road traffic deaths and injuries already include their accidents!
Ultimately the Department has nothing to gain from exaggerating the
effects of speeding.
Really? So the extra revenue they gain for the treasury amounting to millions of pounds dosent really interest them? If thats so, tell them to make the cheque payable to Deltaf, and ill buy us all an island with a racetrack 25 miles long on it, and speeding will be very much allowed.
effects of speeding.
Really? So the extra revenue they gain for the treasury amounting to millions of pounds dosent really interest them? If thats so, tell them to make the cheque payable to Deltaf, and ill buy us all an island with a racetrack 25 miles long on it, and speeding will be very much allowed.
lucozade said:
I intend to hit him with a lengthy response.
Lucozade, I don't like to kill you enthusiasm, but Ian Edwards is a civil servant. Their job is to carry out and defend government policy. If they did otherwise, even if they personaly thought that the policy was total bollocks, they would for the high jump. The only people who can change the policy are the politicians. Therefore, it might be better to send your rebuttal to your M.P. E.g I wrote to the DfT on 21st August concerning the Government's speed camera policy. I received this grossly unsatisfactory response from Mr. Ian Edwards.
His reply is erroneous ... etc.
If your M.P. is a Labour one, responses will probably still be drafted by civil servants, however, by using this route (via the politicians), there is the possibility (however slight) of changing the policy.
If your M.P. is a Conservative one, it might encourage them to turn up the heat on the Government over the policy. The Government have already lied in the House over the issue to a Tory Shadow Cabinet Minister (unfortunately I didn't keep the link).
chrisgr31 said:
Why are they the same thing? You cn be in a hurry but not speeding or doing an excessive speed. Indeed you can be in a hurry and stationary on the M25 most days!
My guess is for "Behaviour-in a hurry" should really be called "Driving without due care & attention" as I assume what they mean.
I bet most people are in a hurry on most journeys, because quite simply they want to get to their destination. However that doesn't maen that most people have an accident doing it.
Hurry
To cause to move or act with speed or haste: hurried the children to school.
To cause to move or act with undue haste; rush: was hurried into marriage.
To speed the progress or completion of; expedite. See Synonyms at speed.
Mr2Mike said:
Why are they the same thing? You cn be in a hurry but not speeding or doing an excessive speed. Indeed you can be in a hurry and stationary on the M25 most days!
My guess is for "Behaviour-in a hurry" should really be called "Driving without due care & attention" as I assume what they mean.
I bet most people are in a hurry on most journeys, because quite simply they want to get to their destination. However that doesn't maen that most people have an accident doing it.
Hurry
To cause to move or act with speed or haste: hurried the children to school.
To cause to move or act with undue haste; rush: was hurried into marriage.
To speed the progress or completion of; expedite. See Synonyms at speed.
Pulling out from a junction without giving due time for observation would be "Behaviour in a hurry"
Cutting in at the last minute at a busy motorway junction would be "Behaviour in a hurry"
Driving too close to the car in front would be "Behaviour in a hurry".
None of which are speeding, but all of which are likely to result in an accident.
Dictionary definitions are fairly pointless when taken out of context.
A DOT dimwit said:
In addition to the stand alone factor, excessive and inappropriate
speed is clearly a factor in and may be coded in the report for any of the
following reasons; sudden braking; careless/reckless driving; following
too close; behaviour – in a hurry; loss of control of a vehicle; poor
overtaking, etc.
To add to the excellent responses so far, I'd also point out that surely all the things listed here can be much more effectively policed by Traffic Cops than they ever can by a speed camera. A speed camera will detect what speed a vehicle is travelling at, but it most certainly will not detect any of the above.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff