Discussion
Hi All,
Some of you may have been wondering how it is that serious injuries have been falling while deaths have remained static. I may have discovered the answer.
See this new Safe Speed page:
www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html
Comments welcome as ever.
If anyone has hospital, paramedic, ambulance or similar contacts, I would be extremely interested if they have any opinions at all about the analysis.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Some of you may have been wondering how it is that serious injuries have been falling while deaths have remained static. I may have discovered the answer.
See this new Safe Speed page:
www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html
Comments welcome as ever.
If anyone has hospital, paramedic, ambulance or similar contacts, I would be extremely interested if they have any opinions at all about the analysis.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
You raised some very interesting and pertinent points, that appear both valid and probable. These issues should be raised (as I am sure you will attempt to do) at the highest levels. Well done for an interesting, well reasoned and sensible thesis.
As for reporting, I do seem to remember (but am not cetain) that years ago, the medical profession were instructed to give a medical reason for deaths, which did not include 'old age' as a valid reason, as had been done in the past. This (I believe) led to an increase in the reported number of deaths by heart failure (instead of old age). Not, obviously, related to your report, but does show how a change in policy can affect apparent figures.
As for reporting, I do seem to remember (but am not cetain) that years ago, the medical profession were instructed to give a medical reason for deaths, which did not include 'old age' as a valid reason, as had been done in the past. This (I believe) led to an increase in the reported number of deaths by heart failure (instead of old age). Not, obviously, related to your report, but does show how a change in policy can affect apparent figures.
I couldn't find an explanation for the reason you chose the percentages for reclassification in the table before graph 5. Without an explanation they look rather arbitrary and wouldn't hold up to argument.
From other graphs on your site you can clearly see when compulsory seatbelt wearing came in. It would be useful to know how much the reduction in serious injuries can be attributed to a combination of ABS and airbags. Perhaps Volvo has some data that can be used as a comparison from their long term studies into accidents ?
From other graphs on your site you can clearly see when compulsory seatbelt wearing came in. It would be useful to know how much the reduction in serious injuries can be attributed to a combination of ABS and airbags. Perhaps Volvo has some data that can be used as a comparison from their long term studies into accidents ?
te51cle said:
I couldn't find an explanation for the reason you chose the percentages for reclassification in the table before graph 5. Without an explanation they look rather arbitrary and wouldn't hold up to argument.
The percentages were chosen to bring the trends "back into alignment". The purpose of doing so is to define what we're looking for as much as anything else. I'll add a suitable note to the page. Thanks.
te51cle said:
From other graphs on your site you can clearly see when compulsory seatbelt wearing came in.
I'd say that's a maybe. One day in 1984 when the legislation came in seat belt useage jumped for under 20% to over 85%. We should be able to see a step change. But we don't.
te51cle said:
It would be useful to know how much the reduction in serious injuries can be attributed to a combination of ABS and airbags. Perhaps Volvo has some data that can be used as a comparison from their long term studies into accidents ?
It certainly would be very interesting. I wrote to Volvo last year but never had a useful reply. Sometimes it's hard to land a letter on the right desk.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Looks like youve been doing some good head-scratching there 
I would expect to see larger numbers being referred to hospital these days with the emergency services looking to protect themselves (if in doubt send them to hospital) and with the benefits to be had from insurance claims - someone just tapped me up the a*se so I'll hold my neck and get referred to hospital and wait for the cheque to arrive.
Or am I just too cynical
E.
I would expect to see larger numbers being referred to hospital these days with the emergency services looking to protect themselves (if in doubt send them to hospital) and with the benefits to be had from insurance claims - someone just tapped me up the a*se so I'll hold my neck and get referred to hospital and wait for the cheque to arrive.
Or am I just too cynical
E.
andrew54 said:
Could the apparent 'reduction' in serious injuries be due to air bags? Possibly an accident severe enough to be fatal will be unchanged by the air bag. But possibly air bags are preventing some broken bones, wrists, arms, fingers, etc.
Just a thought.
I don't think so. But I have a way to find out for sure.
If we look at the severity ratios for different classes of road user (and RAGB / RCGB has the figures I need) we'll soon know if the effect is confined to drivers and passengers (as opposed to bikers, cyclists and pedestrians). I should be able to get that done this evening.
edited to add: Preliminary results are in. The strange behaviour of the serious stats applies across the board. Pedestrians. Bikers. Car drivers and pasesengers. Van Drivers etc...
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
>> Edited by safespeed on Thursday 12th February 18:58
One important factor missing from all of the published statistics is the global figure of traffic accidents regardless of injuries (insurance companies ought to have some useful statistics). I would hazard a guess that the total figure increases year on year. In that case even a static KSI figure would indicate a downward trend.
Getting Insurance figures for accidents is like trying to get Hospital figures - they all quote the data protection act (about identity of victim) and thats that. Been trying for over one year now to run a campaign with our local NHS about just how much Road Accidents cost them (bed time/staff time etc - not linked to any specific issue i.e speeding - just what road casualties cost them and therefore us)- and getting nowhere - still being discussed by their "ethics" commitee..
The reliance on the Data Protection Act is the latest refuge of the incompetent. Can you imagine the MOD not revealing how many soldiers where killed in Iraq because of the DP Act?
The real problem is that many hospital's would find it impossible to generate that kind of data. Hospital procedures are all recorded according to a coding system. Most surgical staff use Reid codes (in their written notes) which include provisions to record the circumstances which gave rise to the injury (domestic accident, criminal act, RTA etc). Hospital computerised accounting systems will use OPCS codes (which do not make use of such finer definition) because all central government reimbursements to the hospital (for the procedures performed) are based on OPCS codes. It would be a very time consuming and expensive exercise to trawl through paper records to extract this information.
The real problem is that many hospital's would find it impossible to generate that kind of data. Hospital procedures are all recorded according to a coding system. Most surgical staff use Reid codes (in their written notes) which include provisions to record the circumstances which gave rise to the injury (domestic accident, criminal act, RTA etc). Hospital computerised accounting systems will use OPCS codes (which do not make use of such finer definition) because all central government reimbursements to the hospital (for the procedures performed) are based on OPCS codes. It would be a very time consuming and expensive exercise to trawl through paper records to extract this information.
kurgis said:
Getting Insurance figures for accidents is like trying to get Hospital figures - they all quote the data protection act (about identity of victim) and thats that. Been trying for over one year now to run a campaign with our local NHS about just how much Road Accidents cost them (bed time/staff time etc - not linked to any specific issue i.e speeding - just what road casualties cost them and therefore us)- and getting nowhere - still being discussed by their "ethics" commitee..
Umm! After the "unfortunate incident" with the dodgy ticker bloke, and once all damages had been sorted out (my injuries, loss of earnings, etc), a huge chunk went to NHS to refund them for all the care and attention in the ICU, ops, etc! Another slice went to the lawyers, and the insurance company took their cut as well!
My insurance still foots bills for all ensuing treatments, such as physio, required from that smash (which broke almost every bone - and all healed! 80mph hit? Who says "speed kills!!!!!")
NHS may incur costs initially, but can and do reclaim from insurance companies! From what I can deduce from Dr A&E Wildkatze, methods of recording costs and stats do vary from Trust to Trust - or that is the opinion I formed from listening to them!
And we all know doctors - they never form the same opinion regarding ailments and injuries!
Could be another reason why they are unwilling to give you answers on this? Who knows!
BUT..
Have asked Dr "A&E" Wildkatze in London and Dr "can ask questions in my hospital in Wales" Wildkatze to look at the safespeed site and analysis and give their opinions when they get time!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff