ADUK Archive

Published today:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/suppletablesfactsheets

Headlines in the useful 'factsheet':

http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/328843/flagbfactsheet.pdf

Thanks Andy.

A quick skim and noticed the East Midlands has the highest fatal accident rate...anyone know why?

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Am I alone in thinking that it's quite hard to be killed in a car these days? Modern cars are well engineered with structural integrity and numerous safety devices. Incidents that people walk away from now with no more than bruising could have been fatal 40 years ago.

Do statistics exist that only show collisions by type, speed and injury that can be compared over the years, taking into account number of vehicles and miles driven?

My other fear is that this will be used as amunition by the speed camera/ traffic calming/lower limits brigade

Angus wrote:Lies, damned lies and statistics.

As presented (without any 'spin') they are the facts (if subject to the limits of the Stats 19 form the police report them on). I don't know how you can claim them as 'lies'!?

Angus wrote:Am I alone in thinking that it's quite hard to be killed in a car these days? Incidents that people walk away from now with no more than bruising could have been fatal 40 years ago.

It depends how you classify 'quite hard'! Yes, obviously improvements in vehicle and road safety, extraction methods and medical care etc mean vehicle collisions are less likely to be fatal than they were years ago, similarly improvements in design etc have improved the survivability/severity of vehicle vs pedestrian/cyclist collisions. However as the figures show too many people still seem to find it 'easy' to kill themselves and others on our roads.

Angus wrote:Do statistics exist that only show collisions by type, speed and injury that can be compared over the years, taking into account number of vehicles and miles driven?

Yes, the stats show type, road, conditions and contributory factors with trends back to 1979.

Angus wrote:My other fear is that this will be used as amunition by the speed camera/ traffic calming/lower limits brigade.

Open to debate but in the absence of effective education clearly enforcement and engineering continue to have a part to play.

18% of accidents have ‘Travelling too fast for conditions’ or ‘Exceeding the speed limit’ as contributory factor allocated to them.

Younger (16-19 year old) drivers/riders involved in fatal accidents were the age group most likely to have ‘Travelling too fast for conditions’ or ‘Exceeding the speed limit’ contributory factor allocated to them (31%). Over a quarter of 20-29 year olds had one of these speed contributory factors.

This is why the DSA/DfT are doing their current UK consultation thing.

They state that all has been reasonably done with car & road design.

The only thing left to get these figures down is to improve the driver.

There are proposals to improve the new drivers of the future but how do you improve those that are out there now

As those out there now will not voluntarily commit to improve then the ONLY thing left is enforcement.

- unless someone knows of a reasonable alternative to reduce these figures...................

ROG wrote:As those out there now will not voluntarily commit to improve then the ONLY thing left is enforcement.

We all have, haven't we?

I wonder how many people are out there who would follow the same path if they simply knew it existed?

I did an experiment recently where I pretended to be someone who wanted to improve their driving, but knew nothing about advanced driving. Some web searches put me onto the county council's road safety team, who sent me a DVD from the local police showing you a fairly decent commentated drive, with some tips and tricks. I asked if there was some way I could learn more, and after about a month, I got an email suggesting IAM/ROSPA.

What if I'd contacted an ADI? What if I'd looked something up in the yellow pages? What if, like I suspect most people, I simply lost interest after a while.

I agree that for the majority, even if this was waved under their noses, they would simply walk on, but I do think that advanced driving needs to raise its profile, and maybe stop calling itself advanced driving. It suggests an elitist club, rather than a program which can benefit most people, improving their existing standard, for a reasonable cost.

I also think there needs to be a more formal link between the DSA and AD organisations, so that after someone passes their L test they are made aware there are things they can do to improve.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most people are already aware and they are simply not interested. I don't have any evidence to base this on either way.

Any thoughts?

StressedDave wrote:As for the other figures, they look like they're plateaued to me.

They did seem to have plateaued in recent years, but a 7% reduction taking annual fatalities below 3000 for the first time is surely a significant improvement.

ROG wrote:They state that all has been reasonably done with car & road design.

There are still plenty of busy single carriageway routes crying out to be dualled. I'm sure putting a substantial proportion of long-distance traffic on to motorways or grade separated dual carriageways has over the years made a major contribution to reducing road casualties.

ROG wrote:This is why the DSA/DfT are doing their current UK consultation thing.

They state that all has been reasonably done with car & road design.

The only thing left to get these figures down is to improve the driver.

There are proposals to improve the new drivers of the future but how do you improve those that are out there now

As those out there now will not voluntarily commit to improve then the ONLY thing left is enforcement.

- unless someone knows of a reasonable alternative to reduce these figures...................

Well the changes that are being proposed for driver training increase responsibility for the driver whilst the changes proposed for vehicles decrease responsibility for the driver.

ROG wrote:There are proposals to improve the new drivers of the future but how do you improve those that are out there now

As those out there now will not voluntarily commit to improve then the ONLY thing left is enforcement.

- unless someone knows of a reasonable alternative to reduce these figures...................

Re-testing at least every 10 years. Its the only logical thing to do.

'Health and Safety' is a constant irritant to me, in that it's often taken to ridiculous extremes. But for some reason, driving seems mysteriously exempt from any such concerns (for the general public at least). Where else today would you be allowed to carry out an activity involving substantial risk of death, both to one's self and to innocent bystanders, on the strength of having passed a test 20 years ago (when standards were different) and had zero training or assessment since?!!!!!

It would also allow for a grading system, which could be taken into account for insurance purposes, which would be a good incentive for people to improve.

zadocbrown wrote:

ROG wrote:There are proposals to improve the new drivers of the future but how do you improve those that are out there now

As those out there now will not voluntarily commit to improve then the ONLY thing left is enforcement.

- unless someone knows of a reasonable alternative to reduce these figures...................

Re-testing at least every 10 years. Its the only logical thing to do.

It would also allow for a grading system, which could be taken into account for insurance purposes, which would be a good incentive for people to improve.

The above 2 suggestions you make were proposed at the consultation meeting by most trainers etc

vonhosen wrote:

ROG wrote:This is why the DSA/DfT are doing their current UK consultation thing.

They state that all has been reasonably done with car & road design.

The only thing left to get these figures down is to improve the driver.

There are proposals to improve the new drivers of the future but how do you improve those that are out there now

As those out there now will not voluntarily commit to improve then the ONLY thing left is enforcement.

- unless someone knows of a reasonable alternative to reduce these figures...................

Well the changes that are being proposed for driver training increase responsibility for the driver whilst the changes proposed for vehicles decrease responsibility for the driver.

....with some risk that it will diminish drivers' inclination to think about what they're doing and make sensible decisions - "Why should I bother, the car will decide what to do!" I think that's a bad feature, and it will tend to offset some of the gains that should come from improved driver training.

This is not just a matter of me objecting to having the car decide what it is going to do, and how, and in what circumstances. I certainly do not want too much of that sort of thing, but I'm not sure it's the way to progress anyhow - for drivers in general.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

ROG wrote:

zadocbrown wrote:Re-testing at least every 10 years. Its the only logical thing to do.

It would also allow for a grading system, which could be taken into account for insurance purposes, which would be a good incentive for people to improve.

The above 2 suggestions you make were proposed at the consultation meeting by most trainers etc

Who obviously don't have any vested interest in increasing the amount of testing

Angus wrote:Lies, damned lies and statistics.

True, but these statistics can be used to argue for and against almost everything since they are just extracted from the STATS 19 which as mentioned here has its downfalls.

zadocbrown wrote:Where else today would you be allowed to carry out an activity involving substantial risk of death, both to one's self and to innocent bystanders, on the strength of having passed a test 20 years ago (when standards were different) and had zero training or assessment since?!!!!!

Flying a plane?

MGF wrote:

zadocbrown wrote:Where else today would you be allowed to carry out an activity involving substantial risk of death, both to one's self and to innocent bystanders, on the strength of having passed a test 20 years ago (when standards were different) and had zero training or assessment since?!!!!!

Flying a plane?

You need check tests for a plane don't you ?