B

Bob Hobden

Guest
Interesting reading. So exceeding the speed limit causes about the same % of
accidents as Emergency Vehicles on call..5%. (with another 12% being caused
by driving too fast for the conditions.)
So what's all this rubbish about speed cameras significantly cutting
accidents when they can only affect 5% of accidents anyway.
66% are caused by Driver Error including... 32% caused by failure to look
properly, 18% by failure to judge other person's path/speed, Poor turn of
manoeuvre 15%, loss of control 14% and sudden breaking 7% all of which cause
more "accidents" than speeding.

Full report at (in PDF)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_612587.hcsp
An article at...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2379124,00.html

Regards
Bob H.



 
"Bob Hobden" <bobh@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:4pf9l9FijqdeU1@individual.net...

> So what's all this rubbish about speed cameras significantly cutting
> accidents

You said it yourself, it's rubbish, speed cameras are another stealth tax
pure and simple.
Greg


 
Greg wrote:

> "Bob Hobden" <bobh@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:4pf9l9FijqdeU1@individual.net...
>
>
>>So what's all this rubbish about speed cameras significantly cutting
>>accidents
>
>
> You said it yourself, it's rubbish, speed cameras are another stealth tax
> pure and simple.
> Greg

Surely you didn't believe otherwise.
 
Bob Hobden <bobh@invalid.com> uttered summat worrerz funny about:
> Interesting reading. So exceeding the speed limit causes about the
> same % of accidents as Emergency Vehicles on call..5%. (with another
> 12% being caused by driving too fast for the conditions.)
> So what's all this rubbish about speed cameras significantly cutting
> accidents when they can only affect 5% of accidents anyway.
> 66% are caused by Driver Error including... 32% caused by failure to
> look properly, 18% by failure to judge other person's path/speed,
> Poor turn of manoeuvre 15%, loss of control 14% and sudden breaking
> 7% all of which cause more "accidents" than speeding.
>
> Full report at (in PDF)
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_612587.hcsp
> An article at...
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2379124,00.html
>
> Regards
> Bob H.

"For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was
loss of control, which was involved in 35 per cent of road deaths." - And
speed has nothing to do with with on what percentage of occasions? You don't
lose control of a stationary car.

"Five of the six most frequently reported contributory factors were some
kind of driver or rider error or reaction" - Of course they frigging were...
a car alone won't cause an accident, it needs a "human error" at the wheel,
mechanical failure or conditions introducing beyond the drivers control -
tree falling in the road, load falling from a waggon etc. If it's none of
the above it's not an "Accident", It's an "On Purpose" in'it.

There is no doubt that speed cameras are a form of taxation in my mind -
HOWEVER I got a ticket , I don't thrape the arse of my cars BUT I exceeded
the limit in an area I don't often travel where they reduced the limit and
introduced cameras. No excuses caught fair and square. The main thing to
come from this is now I'm VERY VERY alert to speed limits in areas I don't
travel every day and use far more caution than I would have done previously.
Most traffic officers will tell you that conviction is not the answer,
education is the answer, I've been educated the hard way and I thought I was
a good and safe driver, don't we all!

Lee D




 
"Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Seidnfyvlc3M5q_YRVnytQ@eclipse.net.uk...

> Surely you didn't believe otherwise.

No I didn't, what is surprising is that the government has got away with
concealing these statistics for so long, the article quotes "the first ever
set of statistics released by the Department for Transport (DfT)". So what
justification have they had for keeping the numbers secret, except so they
could continue lying to us that speeding is such a serious issue that
cameras are needed...

Greg


 
the only things that causes accidents is driving beyonds the limits of
a/ yourself
b/ your vehicle
c/ road conditions

speed doesn"t directly come in to it
 
Greg wrote:

> "Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Seidnfyvlc3M5q_YRVnytQ@eclipse.net.uk...
>
>
>>Surely you didn't believe otherwise.
>
>
> No I didn't, what is surprising is that the government has got away with
> concealing these statistics for so long, the article quotes "the first ever
> set of statistics released by the Department for Transport (DfT)". So what
> justification have they had for keeping the numbers secret, except so they
> could continue lying to us that speeding is such a serious issue that
> cameras are needed...
>
> Greg

On which subject has the government not lied? - Irag, the NHS, tax,
foot and mouth, identity cards .... the list goes on. Unfortunately
Joe Public still seems to believe that the sun shines out of every
orifice in Bliar's body.
 
Greg <news@SPAM123voyager2.nildram.co.uk> uttered summat worrerz funny
about:
> "Dougal" <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Seidnfyvlc3M5q_YRVnytQ@eclipse.net.uk...
>
>> Surely you didn't believe otherwise.
>
> No I didn't, what is surprising is that the government has got away
> with concealing these statistics for so long, the article quotes "the
> first ever set of statistics released by the Department for Transport
> (DfT)". So what justification have they had for keeping the numbers
> secret, except so they could continue lying to us that speeding is
> such a serious issue that cameras are needed...
>
> Greg

I don't think they will have kept them secret, just that they weren't
recorded across different force areas by the same "counting rules" and while
some forces would have recorded certain aspects others wouldn't. It appears
now they are working to one set of counting rules, however they do that with
Crime , yet different forces still interpret the rules differently hence the
need for the likes of the HMIC to Police the Police if you like, as soon as
you start bean counting then any one looks for was of making their beans
best for them. Thats the trouble with counting beans!

For me the question regards what caused the accident, "Loss of Control" or
"Excess speed" doesn't really make the truth any clearer.... as in was it
excess speed which caused the loss of control?

Besides - If the figures suggested that Speed was a cause of most accidents
the a lot , and I mean A LOT of forces would have a hard job explaining why
they have disbanded anything resemblent of a Traffic Department..... give it
time though and the merry-go-round will be back to the start IMHO.



 
Lee_D wrote:

> "For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was
> loss of control, which was involved in 35 per cent of road deaths." - And
> speed has nothing to do with with on what percentage of occasions? You don't
> lose control of a stationary car.

No, but you can lose control of a legally moving vehicle with fatal
consequences, with a little inattention.

> now I'm VERY VERY alert to speed limits in areas I don't
> travel every day and use far more caution than I would have done previously.

Like all of us now are of course, with exactly the consequences one
might have predicted, deaths have INCREASED, because of the shift in
awareness.

Steve
 
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:29:11 +0100, Lee_D
<newsgroupNOSPAM@NOSPAMlrproject.com> wrote:

> ...
> There is no doubt that speed cameras are a form of taxation in my mind -
> HOWEVER I got a ticket ...

yep - it's a vey important legal point that has yet to be made.

Thinking more of stationary traffic offences really - but the point is the
same. To those of us running any type of small business that involves
using UK roads, these costs are not tax deductable and will not be until
it can be 'proven' that the authorities prime motivation is revenue
generation.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 

"Bob Hobden" <bobh@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:4pf9l9FijqdeU1@individual.net...
> Interesting reading. So exceeding the speed limit causes about the
> same % of accidents as Emergency Vehicles on call..5%. (with another
> 12% being caused by driving too fast for the conditions.)
> So what's all this rubbish about speed cameras significantly cutting
> accidents when they can only affect 5% of accidents anyway.
******
There's a difference between causing an accident and "affecting" one.
It would take a rather more sophisticated accident study to assess what
the consequences (in terms of injuries, damage to vehicles, etc) would
have been if vehicles exceeding the limit had not been doing so.

40 percent increase in speed roughly doubles the energy that's got to be
absorbed somewhere. If what really matters is the severity of an
accidents, then one can very broadly think of the probability of a
particular level of severe accident happening as the product of the
probability of it happening at all (which many folk here do not believe
correlates closely with speed) and the probability of that accident
having severe consequences, which I'd guess rather more people accept as
being a function of speed.

If I'm going to drive into a tree, for whatever reason, I'd rather do so
at 30 mph than 40.

Disclaimer: I have no professional experience of road accident
investigation, though I did investigate train crashes in a former
existence.


--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. oct2006@mainbeam.co.uk)***


 
"Lee_D" <newsgroupNOSPAM@NOSPAMlrproject.com> wrote in message
news:4pfcvpFiauh4U1@individual.net...

> The main thing to
> come from this is now I'm VERY VERY alert to speed limits in areas I don't
> travel every day and use far more caution than I would have done
previously.

So do I, and that attention dedicated to watching the speedo and scanning
for hidden speed limit drops that just happen to coincide with cameras
around the corner is attention redirected from the traffic around me. In my
view cameras make the roads more dangerous, apart from the distraction
there's the panic braking when people do see them and the flat out
acceleration and braking of those familiar with the road.

Greg


 
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:36:01 +0100, Greg
<news@SPAM123voyager2.nildram.co.uk> wrote:

> ...
> In my
> view cameras make the roads more dangerous, apart from the distraction
> there's the panic braking when people do see them and the flat out
> acceleration and braking of those familiar with the road.

LOL @ the very idea of "flat out acceleration and braking" in a Land Rover.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8
 

Greg wrote:
apart from the distraction there's the panic braking when people do
see them and the flat out acceleration and braking of those familiar
with the road.


Yeah, like the people who brake from 75 to 40 in the outside lane on
the A43!! Last year a driver was killed when the car in fronr did this
and the van behind was 'distracted'.

How many accidents are caused by speed cameras. I'm sure some camera
spots that were marginal before, have become accident blackspots
because of the speed camera.

Neil

 
On or around Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:46:35 +0100, "Lee_D"
<newsgroupNOSPAM@NOSPAMlrproject.com> enlightened us thusly:

>
>For me the question regards what caused the accident, "Loss of Control" or
>"Excess speed" doesn't really make the truth any clearer.... as in was it
>excess speed which caused the loss of control?

that and the sudden braking. Of course, sudden braking could be caused by
just having noticed an approaching speed camera...

I've long held that ALL fixed speed limits are a crude instrument which
doesn't really work. Trouble is, they're cheap to implement, unlike proper
driver training.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
Alphonse Karr (1808 - 1890) Les Guêpes, Jan 1849
 

"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:eek:p.thh1auqnm9g4qz@jupiter.cavern.tbdata.com...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:36:01 +0100, Greg
> <news@SPAM123voyager2.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > In my
> > view cameras make the roads more dangerous, apart from the distraction
> > there's the panic braking when people do see them and the flat out
> > acceleration and braking of those familiar with the road.
>
> LOL @ the very idea of "flat out acceleration and braking" in a Land
Rover.
>
>
LOL? Try it in a 109" 2 1/4 D (collapses into fit of hysterical laughter)

Martin


 

"Autolycus" <mar2006@mainbeam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:egu41j$73d$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Bob Hobden" <bobh@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:4pf9l9FijqdeU1@individual.net...
> > Interesting reading. So exceeding the speed limit causes about the
> > same % of accidents as Emergency Vehicles on call..5%. (with another
> > 12% being caused by driving too fast for the conditions.)
> > So what's all this rubbish about speed cameras significantly cutting
> > accidents when they can only affect 5% of accidents anyway.
> ******
> There's a difference between causing an accident and "affecting" one.
> It would take a rather more sophisticated accident study to assess what
> the consequences (in terms of injuries, damage to vehicles, etc) would
> have been if vehicles exceeding the limit had not been doing so.
>
> 40 percent increase in speed roughly doubles the energy that's got to be
> absorbed somewhere. If what really matters is the severity of an
> accidents, then one can very broadly think of the probability of a
> particular level of severe accident happening as the product of the
> probability of it happening at all (which many folk here do not believe
> correlates closely with speed) and the probability of that accident
> having severe consequences, which I'd guess rather more people accept as
> being a function of speed.
>
> If I'm going to drive into a tree, for whatever reason, I'd rather do so
> at 30 mph than 40.
>
I agree with that, a little less speed would make a lot of difference to the
severity of the accident.

> Disclaimer: I have no professional experience of road accident
> investigation, though I did investigate train crashes

> in a former existence.

You've been here before then?, when there were no cars? :)

Martin

>
>
> --
> Kevin Poole
> **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. oct2006@mainbeam.co.uk)***
>
>


 
WT> LOL @ the very idea of "flat out acceleration and braking" in a Land
WT> Rover.

.....hmmmm...is mine faulty then? <grin>

--
Neil


 
Greg wrote:
> "Bob Hobden" <bobh@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:4pf9l9FijqdeU1@individual.net...
>
>
>>So what's all this rubbish about speed cameras significantly cutting
>>accidents
>
>
> You said it yourself, it's rubbish, speed cameras are another stealth tax
> pure and simple.
> Greg
>
>

I get the last laugh with speed cameras as I avoid the tax by sticking
to the speed limits. Clever me, the government won't get any of my cash :)

Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Mad Hat Man
Frequently asked questions
Replies
7
Views
3K
stownrow
stownrow
GRUNT
Buying a second hand 90
Replies
8
Views
4K
Pikey
Pikey
GRUNT
Buying a second hand 90
Replies
13
Views
10K
hugh3s
H