Safe Speed Forums

A black day indeed for British Road Safety, as the 2003 figures reveal the expected but unprecedented rise in fatalities over 2002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3835747.stm

How much longer before we can get rid of these damned cameras?

As an aside, for the first time ever I actually agree with the comment made by Mrs Williams. Do you think she has finally realised that using speed enforcement as a means of revenue collection is actually counter-productive, and that she's been sold down the river just like the rest of us?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Up to a point, but in her book "road safety engineering" means humps, platforms, chicanes, build-outs and gateways, whereas what is really needed is bypasses, dualling, grade-separation and improved sightlines.

The government have got to realise that making the roads more difficult and confusing to drive along does not make them safer.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Interesting that pedestrian and cyclist deaths are down. It looks like us drivers and bikers (esp. bikers) are the ones suffering most. Also noticed the casualty figures are down at the same time deaths have gone up. Seems a bit odd. Have car crashes become more likely to kill than they used to, or has the definition of casualty been tinkered with? Only SIs perhaps? I seem to recall someone here saying that you have to be hospitalised to be an SI now, having your broken arm set and sent home doesn't count - or did I misunderstand that?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Yes, I'm worried as well. I don't think the definitions have changed, but reporting practice might well be drifting or even deliberately twisted:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html



Yes, I think that's a misunderstanding.

But all these cameras are increasing fear of traffic (try and imagine it from the point of view of Miss non-driving single mum) With all these "speeding drivers" causing so much trouble wouldn't you keep your kids away from the road?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I've got an interesting theory about why motorcyclists are faring so badly:

If we listen to the Speed Camera supporters, one of the continual messages that gets spouted is this notion that reducing speeds reduces the severity of impacts. Now there is clearly at least a hint of truth in this theory, sheer common sense tells us so, but we can also see that set against this positive are all the detrimental effects of cameras: reduced observation, complacency and so on.

So in the real world, what we see is an increased potential for accidents caused by the detrimental effects of cameras, but partially offset by reduction in accident severity, thus the nett effect of a slight rise in fatalities amongst motorists.

But with motorcycles, reducing collision speed can only have a very slight beneficial effect due to the relative lack of "survivability" of motorcycling crashes - a fatal accident would be much less likely to be avoided merely by reducing speed than it would in a car. Thus they see the same detrimental effect as motorists, but without the beneficial counterpart, hence the greater rise in the fatality rate, post camera.

The bottom line being that secondary safety has very limited application in motorcycling, and anything that detrimentally affects primary safety will have a magnified effect. In short, I believe enforcement should concentrate primarily on primary safety - accident prevention - and leave secondary safety to the engineers.

This is only a theory, and I can see already there are a few issues that don't entirely fit. Not least is whether speeds actually have decreased due to the presence of speed cameras - I suspect not.

But an interesting discussion point perhaps?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Probably can't drag 'em away from their X-boxes anyway , but I see what you mean. Changes in people's behaviour can affect the extent of the risk they're subject to, yes? Like if eveyone in the world suddenly stopped swimming in the sea there'd be no more shark attacks, but that doesn't mean the sharks have gone away.
It's those sort of things I had in mind when I mentioned tinkering with definitions. Perhaps thinkering wasn't a good way of putting it, as it makes it sound like someone's cooking the books. I was just thinking that there may have been changes, for whatever reason, that may have moved the goalposts a bit on what makes an injury serious.
Still reading the rest of the page.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Yes JT.

I've got a few of theories to throw into the pot too.

1) Born again bikers are partly made of risk compensation. When we make the world too nannied, they react by going out and buying the fastest damn bike they can get to have some fun again. Unfortunately it's too much fun for some and slips into recklessness.

2) Dozier car drivers are causing more SMIDSY accidents.

3) The numerical speed messages are perceived as flase, and all speed messages suffer as a result.

So that's three more ways that cameras might be increasing biker deaths.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Increase in the numbers of vehicles with heavy tints on their windows which would increase the smidsy numbers? Any reasearch on the accident rate of heavily tinted windowed vehicles vs ordinary tinted windowed ones?

I've never seen any, but since the eye's response to light is logarithmic, with a dynamic range of 10,000,000 to 1 or more (from memory) I don't expect fixed percentage tints are making much difference.

I think SMIDSYs are more frequently caused by retinal blind spots and windscreen pillars. Seen this:

http://www.smidsy.org.uk ?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That is an outrageous and unfounded claim and is not at all true.

You have simply assumed this and are now pronouncing it as fact.

_________________
It's Champion Man

That is an interesting "safespeed" fact.

Your ears are logarithmic, it is my understanding that your eyes response to brightness is linear.

Just look at the controls in a TV:
1. Sound, logarihmic
2. Brightness, linear

_________________
It's Champion Man

Er, no. The linear nature of a TV brightness control simply reflects the extremely narrow brigthness range of a TV.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22re ... rithmic%22

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Actually no, I never claimed it as "fact". If you go and read my post again you will see it begins:


and then it ends

So its not a "claim", nor do I think it is outrageous. It was just a theory, in other words a possible scenario that might explain the current trends we are seeing. If you have any clear logical reasoning to explain why it might bbe wrong then I'd be happy to hear it.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

The eye's response is logarithmic. TVs and incidentally all other displays that are used for showing natural content have built-in 'gamma correction'.

Itschampionman's response is ignorant:



Have a look here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... right.html
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Weber-Fechner_Law

Sorry couldn't resist
arthurdent

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

Sad reading for those 2003 figures , 77 more people died last year on the roads. Is Mr. Darling going to explain to those victims families that Speed Cameras work?

_________________
RoADA Member -GOLD 2008
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

I wonder how much an impact illegal drivers have on the figures? Is there any data on relative involvement in accidents for illegal drivers vs legit ones? Is that risk greater for those drivers that are from abroad? I know drivers will foreign licences can drive here for up to a year before taking a test but in my opinion that is too long. Are all foreign nationals informed of their responsibility to take a UK test and is there any sanction against that those that drive illegally eg refusing their visa and booting them out? Shame we can't just boot out all our bad drivers no matter where they're from!

I have seen figures (not sure where) that suggested illegal drivers were involved in about 900 of the 3500 fatalities, even though they only account for about 5% of miles driven. This indicates that their relative accident risk is at least five times higher than the average.

Virtually all the shocking "causing death" cases you read about seem to involve a disqualified or never-licenced driver, for example the recent:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.j ... nhit22.xml

"Dean Martin, 23, had stolen his mother's car and was driving while banned at a speed of between 60 and 75mph when he hit two families walking home from a morning dance class."

Yet these people seem to go undetected and unpunished until they crash, whereas safety policy targets the responsible, legitimate majority.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Sad indeed since the figure is really at least 177, since speed cameras saved 100 lives. Or so we were told a week ago.

This is important. No u dont have to be hospitlised, just attend hospital to be serious.

On one hand we have paul suggesting they MIGHT be moving accidents from one catagory to another .. to show the speed cam success. ie someone who attends hospital with a broken finger could be counted as a slight. Instantly one from KSI to minor

On the other hand, I argue, the definitions, which are loosely

dead is dead
serious injury - someone who goes to hospital.
slight, treated at the road side , or not treated.

They are weak definitions. 92 percent of those that go to hospital , leave the same day. Almost all who attend are likely to be catagorised as a serious injury . We are not arguing against each other, in different ways showing how open these loose numbers are to abuse. Maybe they are redefining accidents, but then don't let them say "it was the speed camera wot dun it "


Treated for shock is counted as serious, likewise that suspected whip lash that wasnt is counted. A few stitches are added in. A broken arm , is no more than u get going skiiing. Is it serious ? This is judgemental, I don't think it is serious, but is counted in as serious .


Therefore, we have this huge debate about deaths which they lost and now deaths and serious injurys, based around what somepeople say are a huge amount of KSI's, and actually it's a non event.There are so very few serious accidents. All but 1500 per annum leave hospital within 4-5 days or so.

when broken down to how many serious accidents are excessive speed, well thats an even smaller story..

rgds
bill

Yes it is important but not important enough for you to have the right definitions.


Its a big MIGHT isnt it. Typical of the sort of comment that eventually ends up as fact quoted in later postings and articles. In my experience this claim is not true.


Your definitions are so weak they are nowhere near the real definitions.
for example, Dead is not dead! You could be seriously or slightly injured in an accident but if you die within 30 days from attributable injuries you will be classed as a fatal road casualty. So its not so simple is it.



This means that there are a lot of whet you might call minor injuries being added to the serious category. So there is a worsening of the serios injury count.
Seems like the authorities are making it more difficult to hide acidents rather than fiddle the figures and lower them.
Lets not start using your definitions eh?
Try getting hold of the official def's, just don't ask me for them.

_________________
It's Champion Man