speeding - continued

[tinman]

Back to the speeding thread which is mysteriously locked.

Moving along from the original "i got a speeding ticket - its gonna screw my life" message and onto the facts regarding speeding.

The number of deaths on the roads fell every year until 1997-1998 when Tony Blur got into power. It levelled off at around 3,500 deaths each year.

One of the wonderful things OUR government did in 97 was give carte blanche to every person with an opinion access to our roads and what we can do to them.

So we now have loads of 20mph zones, reduced parking, obstacles in the road, and cameras to name but a few.

After all this was done - how many lives are being lost on the road:

Still 3500 or thereabouts every year.

There are some worrying trends in this 3,500 per year. For instance, before 97 only 100 children were being killed. It is now over 200. The London Ambulance Service has said that speed humps are killing 500 people a year due to the reduced speed of getting them to hospital. What is worrying about the London Ambulance Service - is the possibility that their name implies only the region of London.

If this was spread over the rest of the country then 500 becomes 5000, although I will accept that the problem will be in large cities, and so is only probably killing 2000 patients a years extra.

So in every sense of the word - our roads are now less safe.

Does speed kill. No. Inappropriate speed kills.

We all know what inappropriate is, and we've all done it once. But we were lucky - someone didn't step out in front of us, or pull out from a junction and we got away with it. So before any goody two shoes steps forwards and pretends they are saint - please, save the post.

Is speed a killer - yes and no. There is a 85 percentile graph at www.atb.org.uk which explains why speed limits should not be set too low or too high. It also shows why anyone that anyone who does not have a grasp of maths shouldnt be involved in road saftey.

What is ultimately distugsting is the fact that the powers that be are still looking for the magical forumla to stop road deaths, and asking the question:

"what are we doing wrong?"

When you look at the figures, and the year on year improvement in road deaths until 97, the question should be:

"what were we doing right? And how can we do it better?"

And for anyone brave enough to get the road kill figures from other countries - you'll discover UK roads are the safest, even today, than any other country at anytime in the last 100 years.

Regards,
Tin

[golfvr6]

Well done Tinman  

[antgti]

i agrea fully , but before 1997 Tony blair was'nt making any money, they would'nt like that would they,  its all politics bull

[richy]

I concur.

At busy times in built up areas, 30 mph (or even 20mph) zones might be appropriate.   But cameras in sneaky places, and stupid speed bumps are just out of order!!! There's loads of both round where I am.

Having said that, some speed limits should be raised. 70 or 80 mph is sometimes safe to do on long straights on country roads, and 70 is definitely too low for motorways.  When I drive home on the M40 towards London every night absolutely no-one is driving under 70.  In fact most poeple do nearly a ton.

Rich

P.S. I hope I don't get grounded on a speedbump when I get my car lowered!!  

[turbo]

the 30mph speed limit was introduced back in 1930's!
70 years on and most roads which were higher than this are coming down to this speed despite having ever safer cars / braking systems..

fat is the government wants us out of our cars!
if a kid gets knocked over its there own fault for running in the road ive seen a girl walking in the road shouting knock me over!!! thats the mentality of kids / people theses days!!

yes car crashes at higher speeds are nasty but how many do you see not alot thats because at 60mph most people have and drive with care.......
but its theses other type of people which cause accidents being whombats...... hog fast lane doing 40mph! in a 70mph zone!!!!!

and despite all the speed limits coming down accidents go up its a proven fact ! i have evidence!!!!!!

http://www.abd.org.uk/suffolk_accident_trends.htm
or see below!!!

Suffolk County Council introduced 450 new 30MPH speed limits at the end of 1995, many of them on roads where no driver would expect to see such a low speed limit. Most of these roads were previously NSLA (National Speed Limit Applies), some have just one or two houses alongside them, others pass near to a village but not through it.

The graphs below show the trends for various categories of accident before (blue) and after (red) the introduction of the 30MPH speed limits.
 
The equations shown are for the linear trendline which averages out fluctuations each year to indicate how the figures are changing over the longer period. A negative multiple of x indicates that the casualty rate (y) is reducing each year (x), a positive figure indicates that it is increasing.

fatalities!!!!!

Before the introduction of the 30 limits, fatalities were reducing by an average of just over 6 per year. Since the introduction of 30 limits, fatalities are increasing by about 1 per year. In 1996 when the limits were imposed fatalities jumped from 35 to 59, a massive increase of 69%, and the worst figure for six years

slight injuries!!!!!

This is the most damming of all, and it is obvious that the 30MPH limits are to blame. Before the introduction of the 30 limits, slight injuries were reducing by an average of about 87 per year. Not only did slight injuries increase by a massive 272 (12%) following the introduction of the 30 limits; but since then they have been increasing by an average of 50 per year.


this proves low speed limits are s***! and dont work!

where theres a blame theres a claim dont help!!!!!!
accident helplines etc etc...............

[tinman]

Your graphs are quite interesting.

Apparently there is an ongoing argument that all crash statistics should be made public.

At the moment you need 4 fatalities within 1km of a camera, or something like that. However, because we don't know the circumstances around the 4 fatalities, there are suspicions that cameras are placed without taking into consideration the fatalities.

For instance. If a minibus drives off the road and kills its 4 occupants, and the driver was 10 times over the limit - there you have your 4 fatalities.

So the argument being put against the authorities is that because they wont release the actual circumstances surrounding these accidents, we cannot guage whether the camera is there to make a road safer, or to raise cash.

Interesting huh?

Tin

[lowgolf]

But at the end of the day, most are "accidents" caused generally by human error. Which can never be irradicated. We may just be having a few clumsy years.

[vixteris]

if a member of your family was killed by a dangerous driver would you want it to be considered an 'accident'.  if someone is driving illegally for whatever reason, in my opinion it cannot be classed as an accident.

it is a selfish, deliberate and stupid act to drive a car without consideration of others that might be using the road and thus not an 'accident'

3500 deaths each year is a hell of alot of accidents. just for some perspective of how many that is, it is the equivalent

5 Lockerbie disasters,

plus 140 Hatfield disasters

plus 50 Paddington train crashes

plus the Concorde disaster in Paris


about time for a public enquiry me thinks!!

[tinman]

if a member of your family was killed by a dangerous driver would you want it to be considered an 'accident'.  if someone is driving illegally for whatever reason, in my opinion it cannot be classed as an accident.

it is a selfish, deliberate and stupid act to drive a car without consideration of others that might be using the road and thus not an 'accident'

3500 deaths each year is a hell of alot of accidents. just for some perspective of how many that is, it is the equivalent

but this is the problem i mentioned earlier - the causes and events surrounding fatal accidents are not put into the public domain.

so the question becomes - how many fatalities were the result of dangerous driving? how many fatalities were caused by illegal drivers?

we havent got the answers, and until we get these answers, then I for one am going to continue thinking that accidents are exactly that - accidents.

i would also suggest that because these facts are not in the public domain, that they are indeed accidents.

at the end of the day - why let let facts spoil a perfectly good road saftey campaign?

Tin

[tinman]

on another note.

on the road outside my house, there have been 4 deaths in the last 3-4 years. by rights, we should a speed camera near our house.

the first two deaths were a couple of young ladies who met with two pillocks racing down the road. they were killed instantly. the pillock are now serving fairly stiff sentences.

the second two deaths was a woman who they think lent down to pick up her mobile phone whilst overtaking a bus. She hit an oncoming bus and she and her child were both killed.

Would a speed camera, or a 20mph zone of saved any of these people? Would a speed limiter of even saved the second set of deaths.

It is sad when this happens, but we need road saftey campaigns based on facts and not sentiment.

Tin