ADUK Archive

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1974.asp

Good stuff statistics.......

crr003 wrote:http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1974.asp

Good stuff statistics.......

Aye, I often think it would be quite helpful if the figures could be relied upon.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Aren't each of the figures you've quoted claiming different things though ?
The language used would lead to different stats.

Fatality collisions in which speed is a contributory factor (no mention of limit)
Fatality collisions in which exceeding the limit is a contributory factor.
Collisions (of any type) in which exceeding the limit is the cause etc etc, would all lead to different figures.

Why do they now suddenly only start counting collisions for over 25's ?
Because it makes a better figure for a headline ?

vonhosen wrote:Aren't each of the figures you've quoted claiming different things though ?

Not sure - I remember the original Government "Speed Kills" number of 1/3 KSI due to speed. Then I think last year Paul Smith (Safespeed) got it down to 7% and now the Government is saying it's 2% - now, if it's apples to apples or not I don't know!
I suppose it comes down to how the STATS 19 is filled out too.

vonhosen wrote:Why do they now suddenly only start counting collisions for over 25's ?
Because it makes a better figure for a headline ?

17-25 is 6%?

Something doesn't stack up - that's why I said statistics are fun. Why is it so hard to get figures that people can agree with?

vonhosen wrote:Aren't each of the figures you've quoted claiming different things though ?

VH, I expect you are spot on in identifying the precise meaning of the different statistics. But the point being made is that the government selected the wrong statistic to justify focusing road safety efforts on speed limit reduction and enforcement, which has been to the detriment of other road safety initiatives which many of us feel could have achieved more. You could call this piece: 'Nailing the one-third lie' as no doubt ABD do!

When DfT want to maximise the percentage of speed related accidents (usually to justify their purge on speeding motorists) they cite the proportion of accidents caused by excess and inappropriate speed.

The inclusion of inappropriate speed in their justification stats is only because they realised that collisions 'caused' by exceeding the speed limit is a vanishingly small percentage, whereas collisions caused by (an attitude leading to) inappropriate speed could feasibly account for almost all collisions.

Unfortunately you can't solve one problem by pretending that the cure to another problem works.

Rubbish!

I suspect that most drivers will brake before crashing, therefore if they were speeding before the accident then they probably won't be by the time they actually hit something. From what others posted a while ago, I think they need to do a full investigation for speed to be recorded as part of the cause.

899cc wrote:Rubbish!

I suspect that most drivers will brake before crashing, therefore if they were speeding before the accident then they probably won't be by the time they actually hit something. From what others posted a while ago, I think they need to do a full investigation for speed to be recorded as part of the cause.

Police Stats 19 reports are submitted for every injury or investigated RTC. These stats contain a matrix in which the trafpol is asked what he feels were likely cause of the collision, and possible causes of the collision. He has the opportunity to cite whatever factors he/she feels were appropriate, and these are accepted as correct. These are the stats forms from which the causal stats are formed.
It does NOT require a serious collision investigation for exceeding the speed limit to be considered a likely or possible factor.

Perhaps you might want to append the 'Rubbish!' to the bottom of your own post

link to Stats 19 form

Soren,

Interesting link to the stats 19 stuff. Is the 'raw' data as completed by traffic pols publically available?

Standing back from the detail of how it's measured and what the collision speed is, doesn't it make sense intuitively the faster a vehicle is traveling the more likely it is for something to go wrong and the more likely it is to be serious?

I realise this is a simplistic argument but I believe it's too easy to get sucked into unneccesarily detailed arguments trying to debunk cameras etc.

I think we'd all agree reducing traffic speed in serious hazards is good - be it by technology or training...no?

Cameras are blunt instruments, sometimes they are effective, sometimes not. I'm sure they are not 'the answer' but we are just at the start of a long-term campaign.

One thing they have certainly done is get traffic speed and it's effects debated - which I reckon is good in itself.

martine wrote:Soren,

Interesting link to the stats 19 stuff. Is the 'raw' data as completed by traffic pols publically available?

Don't think so, unless you could get it via FOI.

martine wrote:Standing back from the detail of how it's measured and what the collision speed is, doesn't it make sense intuitively the faster a vehicle is traveling the more likely it is for something to go wrong and the more likely it is to be serious?

I honestly believe it depends on your responsiveness and attitude, much more than the numerical speed.
Let's take arguably our safest motorway driver who drives at 85 mph on a clear motorway. He is safer because his responsiveness, alertness and concentration and anticipation are up. He is looking further ahead, he has to, because he is approaching vehicles rather than being approached. His drive is much more positive - active rather than passive.

If this same concentration, alertness and responsiveness was able to be achieved at 65 mph on the same type of road, then I would agree with you that he would be safer in all aspects. But it just doesn't happen like that.

I vote for Soren as Transport Secretary - so long as he agrees to get rid of the NSL.

Von will be confirmed as Principal Advanced Driving Instructor - but will be relieved of any involvement with speed enforcement duties.



Best wishes all,
Dave.

TripleS wrote:I vote for Soren as Transport Secretary - so long as he agrees to get rid of the NSL.

Can't do that Dave!

How else are my mates going to keep their performance figures up if they can't catch a slack handful of speeders every week!?

Søren wrote:

TripleS wrote:I vote for Soren as Transport Secretary - so long as he agrees to get rid of the NSL.

Can't do that Dave!

How else are my mates going to keep their performance figures up if they can't catch a slack handful of speeders every week!?

Oh, OK then, but please can they confine their activities to Cumbria - and leave the A66 alone - and all point east thereof!

Best wishes all,
Dave.