The major cause of RTAs in Surrey
Discussion
streaky said:
Heard on "The Eagle" radio station, a representative of some road safety organisation (didn't hear their attribution) stating that 95% of accidents on Surrey's roads were caused by inattention.
No mention of speed?
WTF is going on?
Streaky
That's about right, and that 95-99% of all accidents take place in built-up areas as well, makes so-called speeding offences really a non-starter! Apart from as a revenue raiser!!!
And they even say this on LanCASHire Pratnership's official website.
In fact - one of us got hold of the little leaflet they give to participants (chap in his village) on this course - which says accidents are caused by driver inattention and poor reaction to hazards! Speed was only mentioned briefly as a "driver error"
Think we have our answers re. the "fleecing cash cow charges" we lay against them!
In fact - one of us got hold of the little leaflet they give to participants (chap in his village) on this course - which says accidents are caused by driver inattention and poor reaction to hazards! Speed was only mentioned briefly as a "driver error"
Think we have our answers re. the "fleecing cash cow charges" we lay against them!
The location is fairly irrelevant, Surrey or wherever, the majority of accidents are minor damage, they predominently occur where there are large numbers of vehicles wanting to travel in different directions,ie town centres (which is why motorways are statistically safer and have noticibly fewer accidents). A great number happen at junctions or in built up areas with on street parking (kids/people crossing from between parked cars)Because of this the main cause recorded is going to be inattention not speed, but that does not mean that speed did not play some part in the accident, it will not be recorded though.
Plenty is being done to address this sort of problem, look at the number of junctions that now have traffic lignts compared with 15-20 years ago, look also at the number of pedestrian refuges being put on roads. I for one DO believe that speed is an issue with respect to accidents and generally it does need to be addressed and dealt with. I do however, think that we are overdoing the use of speed cameras and this is now having a negative effect with a great number of the motoring public, even the ones who have not yet been 'done' by one.(more innovation and imagination is needed to alter peoples behaviour)
The main problem with recently released statistics is that people seen to be over-simplyfying them to suit their own argument ie 'only xx% of accidents are down to speed therefore, speed is not a problem therefore, we should not enforce it'.
Personally having been involved in the game for a number of years now I do think the message is getting accross, if I go back 8 years to when I first became involved in Traffic Policing it was far easier to go out and hand out tickets for speeding. The general overall speed of vehicles has certainly reduced, and with the exception of a recent blip so has the number of accidents/deaths on the roads, is it just me or could there be some connection there?.
Plenty is being done to address this sort of problem, look at the number of junctions that now have traffic lignts compared with 15-20 years ago, look also at the number of pedestrian refuges being put on roads. I for one DO believe that speed is an issue with respect to accidents and generally it does need to be addressed and dealt with. I do however, think that we are overdoing the use of speed cameras and this is now having a negative effect with a great number of the motoring public, even the ones who have not yet been 'done' by one.(more innovation and imagination is needed to alter peoples behaviour)
The main problem with recently released statistics is that people seen to be over-simplyfying them to suit their own argument ie 'only xx% of accidents are down to speed therefore, speed is not a problem therefore, we should not enforce it'.
Personally having been involved in the game for a number of years now I do think the message is getting accross, if I go back 8 years to when I first became involved in Traffic Policing it was far easier to go out and hand out tickets for speeding. The general overall speed of vehicles has certainly reduced, and with the exception of a recent blip so has the number of accidents/deaths on the roads, is it just me or could there be some connection there?.
john robson said:
A great number happen at junctions or in built up areas with on street parking (kids/people crossing from between parked cars)Because of this the main cause recorded is going to be inattention not speed, but that does not mean that speed did not play some part in the accident, it will not be recorded though.
Junctions - and the numpty who rear-ends you! Perhaps approaching too fast. Perhaps fiddling with the in-car stereo, perhaps gawping at speedo! Perhaps the kids playing up in the back
You cannot say as blanket that speed was sole cause. Perhaps, as in my case, bloke was taken ill behind the wheel and hit the throttle hard - as the guy who hit me all those years ago did! Speed was not recorded in cause of that accident -as it was not the prime cause! The bloke's sudden illness was! As for crossing between parked cars - how about teaching that good old fashioned idea in the HC? You know - the one I have been ranting about for some time! And by education - I do not mean naff hedgehogs who cannot sing, do not get message across and miss out all the vital points in their naff adverts anyway!
Common sense applies - and if I were knocked over and killed by crossing a road in such a dangerous fashion - it would be written on the headstone that I had died through numpty behaviour! (I jest not - this family would do just that!
)john robson said:
The location is fairly irrelevant, Surrey or wherever, the majority of accidents are minor damage, they predominently occur where there are large numbers of vehicles wanting to travel in different directions,ie town centres (which is why motorways are statistically safer and have noticibly fewer accidents). A great number happen at junctions or in built up areas with on street parking (kids/people crossing from between parked cars)Because of this the main cause recorded is going to be inattention not speed, but that does not mean that speed did not play some part in the accident, it will not be recorded though.
Plenty is being done to address this sort of problem, look at the number of junctions that now have traffic lignts compared with 15-20 years ago, look also at the number of pedestrian refuges being put on roads. I for one DO believe that speed is an issue with respect to accidents and generally it does need to be addressed and dealt with. I do however, think that we are overdoing the use of speed cameras and this is now having a negative effect with a great number of the motoring public, even the ones who have not yet been 'done' by one.(more innovation and imagination is needed to alter peoples behaviour)
The main problem with recently released statistics is that people seen to be over-simplyfying them to suit their own argument ie 'only xx% of accidents are down to speed therefore, speed is not a problem therefore, we should not enforce it'.
Personally having been involved in the game for a number of years now I do think the message is getting accross, if I go back 8 years to when I first became involved in Traffic Policing it was far easier to go out and hand out tickets for speeding. The general overall speed of vehicles has certainly reduced, and with the exception of a recent blip so has the number of accidents/deaths on the roads, is it just me or could there be some connection there?.
Hi John,
Can you tell us where you get the information that deaths on our roads have been reduced, by inference, due to speed traps?
North Wales, home of Brunstrom: deaths up 13.8% in 2003.
Dyfed Powys; same regime, deaths up 38% in 2003
South Wales; same regime, deaths up 34% in 2003
South Yorks; same regime, deaths up 40% in the last two years.
Lancs, same regime, deaths up by 41% in 2003
Of the twenty plus areas reporting so far, deaths are up by an average of 9%. Paid liars have spun the figures and appear to have "buried" these increases within the KSI figures, thus claiming a third year of success for their policies.
Leaked figures suggest that the total deaths on GB roads for 2003 has risen from c3400 in 2002 to c3700 in 2003. Not yet verified but the other figures suggest it is quite possible.
You will be aware that a serious injury can be a simple broken bone according to the official definition. Not quite on a par with being dead, is it? So why lump them together? Those of us who check the actual figures and ignore the lies know the truth.
Has there ever been a time when so many people with power over us have lied and lied and lied?
>> Edited by Tafia on Thursday 8th April 11:48
john robson said:
and with the exception of a recent blip so has the number of accidents/deaths on the roads, is it just me or could there be some connection there?.
It's not a recent blip. It is sustained, it is consistent, and it is worst in three high camera concentration areas.
And yes, there is a connection.
john robson said:
Personally having been involved in the game for a number of years now I do think the message is getting accross, if I go back 8 years to when I first became involved in Traffic Policing it was far easier to go out and hand out tickets for speeding. The general overall speed of vehicles has certainly reduced, and with the exception of a recent blip so has the number of accidents/deaths on the roads, is it just me or could there be some connection there?.
Message for John Robson.
Hi John,
Are you able to let us know the source of the information that speedtraps are saving lives yet please/
Also, government figures confirm that average speeds have not reduced and, in the case of motorcycles, has increased.
Cheers
T.
Tafia, they are personal observations based on what I see and have seen in the area's I work. One road in particular where accidents, fatal and otherwise has not had a fatal RTA in over 3 years, prior to that there were 1-4 per year.
My initial post is just based on my experience and observations NOT statistics. Just for the record I have not said speed traps are saving lives, I said that speed is an issue but I also said that speed cameras are being overused. I believe that I try to look at the argument from both sides and have a fairly balanced view on the subject.
I have never enforced a speed limit at an unrealistically low margin and do not particularly agree with that being done. I do however, deal with serious and fatal accidents and therefore have an in depth and detailed look at those accidents, so I am not particularly impressed with wildcats view in respect of people walking out in front of cars being the sole architect of their own demise, a driver with good observation skills can, on a great number of occasions anticipate such accidents prior to them occuring and take preventative or evasive action.
My initial post is just based on my experience and observations NOT statistics. Just for the record I have not said speed traps are saving lives, I said that speed is an issue but I also said that speed cameras are being overused. I believe that I try to look at the argument from both sides and have a fairly balanced view on the subject.
I have never enforced a speed limit at an unrealistically low margin and do not particularly agree with that being done. I do however, deal with serious and fatal accidents and therefore have an in depth and detailed look at those accidents, so I am not particularly impressed with wildcats view in respect of people walking out in front of cars being the sole architect of their own demise, a driver with good observation skills can, on a great number of occasions anticipate such accidents prior to them occuring and take preventative or evasive action.
john robson said:
I have never enforced a speed limit at an unrealistically low margin and do not particularly agree with that being done. I do however, deal with serious and fatal accidents and therefore have an in depth and detailed look at those accidents, so I am not particularly impressed with wildcats view in respect of people walking out in front of cars being the sole architect of their own demise, a driver with good observation skills can, on a great number of occasions anticipate such accidents prior to them occuring and take preventative or evasive action.
John
There has to be responsibility on all sides of the argument. Of course I have a responsiblity to other road users to apply the Green Cross Code and cross a road only where it is safe to do so. Same as I have responsibility to my passengers and other road users when in my car, when on my bikes
(or even on the horse! 
) It is called courtesy - something which I do not see in the UK at all. It is called taking responsibility for one's actions. If a pedestrian decides to rush across a road without looking, wearing dark clothes, in front of a car which cannot stop because - with best will in the world, chap driving at correct or just under the speed limit, simply cannot anticipate such a reaction. Happened on A575 I believe a few years back according to relative in the area. (The ex SENIOR TRAFPOL TRAINER!) Woman rushing to catch bus simply bolted across the road and was struck by car at 30mph. No charges brought at all - because he simply could not have avoided her. She was 100% at fault!
Incidentally John, I was brought up in a country where you got a hefty fine for j-walking. Jolly good thing too!
Green Cross Code is an absolutely vital aspect of road safety and I am surprised that you as a BiB do not think that there is a need to address this extremely severe problem in the UK! Confirms why so many get run over here!
Sure - mainland Europe has higher RTAs on aggregate. But LESS kiddies and pedestrians die on their roads - presumably because they are taught how to cross a
road properly in the first place.john robson said:
I do however, deal with serious and fatal accidents and therefore have an in depth and detailed look at those accidents...
Very interesting John. Might I ask you to search your experience regarding these "speed related" accidents and try to determine the cause of the speed? How many fit into these categories: ?
* Failed to adjust speed to hazard (observation and judgement errors)
* Driving reckless, careless or "in a hurry"
* Emergency services
* Stolen vehicles
* Unlicenced drivers
* Drink or drug driver
* Normal responsible motorist exceeding speed limit
My investigations suggest that very very few accidents involve "normal motorists" exceeding a speed limit as a cause or contributory factor.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
>> Edited by safespeed on Saturday 10th April 14:59
To be honest I have noticed some good improvements to the road design just south of Guildford which may actually be in Sussex rather than Surrey. But this is probably still on John's turf (A24). Ie. Warning sign on the road of fatalities then a speed warning radar which highlights the speed and then a speed camera. These have all been at junctions which I think support where a speed camera should be located. Not that I am a speed camera fan but this could be a sensible approach for the future. Now if they could only do this for the other 99.9% of speed cameras instead of hiding them or putting them of safe fast routes.
apeebles said:
...These have all been at junctions which I think support where a speed camera should be located. Not that I am a speed camera fan but this could be a sensible approach for the future....
Out of interest, could you explain why you think speed cameras would help in such locations?
It seems to me that speed cameras have been proven time and time again to be ineffective in every way except raising revenue.
james_j said:
...These have all been at junctions which I think support where a speed camera should be located. Not that I am a speed camera fan but this could be a sensible approach for the future....
Out of interest, could you explain why you think speed cameras would help in such locations?
It seems to me that speed cameras have been proven time and time again to be ineffective in every way except raising revenue.
If they are ineffective what would the alternative effective measure be to reduce fatalities and serious injuries?
destroyer said:
apeebles said:
...These have all been at junctions which I think support where a speed camera should be located. Not that I am a speed camera fan but this could be a sensible approach for the future....
Out of interest, could you explain why you think speed cameras would help in such locations?
It seems to me that speed cameras have been proven time and time again to be ineffective in every way except raising revenue.
If they are ineffective what would the alternative effective measure be to reduce fatalities and serious injuries?
Better driver education, harder driving test, limiting drivers vehicles by hp/torque/top speed/take your pick until an advanced test is taken, more traf pol, etc etc
There are a huge number of things that will reduce road deaths as oppossed to increase them.
Two articles in the Leamington Courier this weekend:
So we have two views of the success of cameras. BTW, how does "casualty" relate to KSI?
article1 said:
Cameras cut road deaths
Speed cameras are being credited with reducing the number of road deaths in Warwickshire.
The county's Casualty Reduction Partnership says the number of casualties at its 19 fixed camera sites has reduced by 52 percent in the past two years.
And Warwickshire as a whole has seen a 27 percent reduction in road casualties....
article2 said:
Villagers' road rage as their junction hopes come to the end of the road
(This article is about the A45/A445 junction at Ryton. A roundabout was planned but now the Highways Agency has said that the cost "could not be justified in terms of the benefits that would accrue" -- ie. it's been cancelled).
A 50mph speed limit and speed cameras were introduced on the A45 in 2001....
There were 12 crashes between 1998 and 2000 causing 20 casualties and damage to 26 vehicles. Between 2001 and 2003 the number of accidents rose to 14, the number of casualties was the same, and 29 vehicles were damaged....
So we have two views of the success of cameras. BTW, how does "casualty" relate to KSI?
john robson said:
Tafia, they are personal observations based on what I see and have seen in the area's I work. One road in particular where accidents, fatal and otherwise has not had a fatal RTA in over 3 years, prior to that there were 1-4 per year.
My initial post is just based on my experience and observations NOT statistics. Just for the record I have not said speed traps are saving lives, I said that speed is an issue but I also said that speed cameras are being overused. I believe that I try to look at the argument from both sides and have a fairly balanced view on the subject.
I have never enforced a speed limit at an unrealistically low margin and do not particularly agree with that being done. I do however, deal with serious and fatal accidents and therefore have an in depth and detailed look at those accidents, so I am not particularly impressed with wildcats view in respect of people walking out in front of cars being the sole architect of their own demise, a driver with good observation skills can, on a great number of occasions anticipate such accidents prior to them occuring and take preventative or evasive action.
Hi John,
Well, it is interesting that Brunstrom told his police committee a couple of years ago that of the 30 or so accidents involving children the previous year, "nearly every one was caused by the child as a pedestrian- the motorist was not to blame"
Do you have any thoughts on the increase in national road deaths in 2003? We now have over 5000 fixed and mobile cameras since we were lied to on the bogus success of the speed camera trial.
Do you find it disgraceful that some police forces are trying to hide any increase in deaths by quoting only the KSI figures. See Northants last year for a spectacular example of this.
Take care
T
james_j said:
...These have all been at junctions which I think support where a speed camera should be located. Not that I am a speed camera fan but this could be a sensible approach for the future....
Out of interest, could you explain why you think speed cameras would help in such locations?
It seems to me that speed cameras have been proven time and time again to be ineffective in every way except raising revenue.
James,
In this "Totally rare" situation the cameras are clearly visible with two other warnings before you reach them. Ie. Warning, Radar indicated speed sign, speed change and then camera all with good visibitity. They are on a dual carriageway right next to a junction. The road then changes back to the national speed limit and is fun to drive on again
. To be honest I am not advicating the camera but the way the council have clearly marked that there is a dangerous junction/road where fatalities have occured. Now if this was North Wales the camera would be hidden behind a bush on the safest part of the road.
apeebles said:
To be honest I have noticed some good improvements to the road design just south of Guildford which may actually be in Sussex rather than Surrey. But this is probably still on John's turf (A24). Ie. Warning sign on the road of fatalities then a speed warning radar which highlights the speed and then a speed camera. These have all been at junctions which I think support where a speed camera should be located. Not that I am a speed camera fan but this could be a sensible approach for the future. Now if they could only do this for the other 99.9% of speed cameras instead of hiding them or putting them of safe fast routes.
I believe that that is in Sussex, as the stretch you refer to is between Horsham and Worthing. Personally I struggle to see why the road should have so many accidents, but suspect its caused by motorists misjudging the speed of vechiles on the A24 when turning on to or across the dual carriageway.
Sussex Camera Partnership does appear to be a relatively good one in that the sites whether mobile or fixed are well signposted, and in areas where either there is a known accident problem, or schools, or some other local hazard. They have also made good use of the radar signs warning you to slow, and indeed signs about accident rates.
However I do think if the Scamera Partnerships were serious about safety they would offer reduced price advanced driver training.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff