Safe Speed Forums

Fatalities...

Major factor = Speed.

I.e. if somebody dies, speed is recorded as factor in the majority of cases where this happens.

I was thinking more along the line of lies, lies and more lies...government manifesto maybe?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

And in the case where EVERY KSI was speed related?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

The stat doesn't reference seriously injured. It states that in the speed was a factor of the majority of fatalities.

Another one....


these stats from https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... eport-2011

DON'T suggest that fatalities are FOUR times as high on "non built up roads" (which I take as Rural myself) as "builtup roads" (urban maybe).



All non built-up roads2
Fatal 923 1,745
Serious 5,774 10,231
Slight 25,572 47,384
All severities 32,269 59,360





All built-up roads2
Fatal 782 1,248 816 158 241 1,215
Serious 14,602 23,644 .. 15,271 3,460 18,731
Slight 98,002 178,997 .. .. 125,584 125,584
All severities 113,386 203,889 816 15,429 129,285 145,530

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Look, speed is only ONE out of TEN things on that page about safer driving and road use, why are you so obsessed with the speed thing, and making out the only message coming out of the government is that "if you don't exceed the speed limit everything is perfectly safe"?

So what other safe driving messages are coming out of the government?

_________________
"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

Er, I linked to a page with 10 subjects on it regarding road safety, one of which is about speed...

I very rarely see advert about speed on TV, more commonly it's think bike, or don't use a phone, and wear a seatbelt in the back and of course, mostly, don't drink and drive.

I tried the mobile phone test and got 28 instead of 27 but didn't see the rabbit and didn't answer 8 questions but it's a load of rubbish, all it proves to me is if you concentrate on the most important points of driving, i.e. people crossing in front of you, you aren't going to be concentrating on a phone conversation and when a large group cross immediately in front of you, does it really matter if one is wearing a rabbit costume?...not really!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

IF YOU care to look at more published figures, you would finfd that "INAPPROPRAITE SPEED "an be atriburted to a lot of accidents.
NOT "speed " , but speed "inappropriate to the conditions"

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

You don't need the "inappropriate" bit though do you. If speed was listed as one of the factors in a crash then it was inappropriate by default right?

I think it's very important to differentiate between exceeding the speed limit and inappropriate speed for the conditions, but within the limit. "Speed" on its own, will always be a factor between objects that collide because they won't collide if neither has any "speed". I could see how those who are strongly in favour of zero tolerance policing of speed limits would prefer to just use the word "speed" though - as it implies exceeding the speed limit and maybe makes them feel more justified in their stance. Another downside to not differentiating is that when the KSI figures don't go down, and there isn't a history of exceeding the speed limit in an area, speed limits just get reduced (again presumably in the hope that it will thereby create a history of exceeding the speed limit which will then explain (at least to the satisfaction of those who had already made up their minds as to the cause) that the KSIs were as a result of "speeding").

This forum relates to the website Safe Speed.
It relates to the fact that for the last 20 years there has been a mass campaign by various governments stating that we must all now stick to the limit or be prosecuted as this will make us 'safe'.
To tell people that by travelling at a certain speed makes you safe is ill informed propaganda and panders to the Speed Industry profiteering pockets that are now enormous !
Yet speed is only a FACTOR in 6% of accidents and automated speed enforcement will never PREVENT any accident.

Whilst mobile phone use has been receiving some additional media coverage is is nothing like the mass hysteria that they have promoted about speed.
We must always travel at a rate, so that you can stop in the distance that you can see to be clear.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I refer you back to one tenet of this site, a statement made years ago by Paul Smith "Safespeed = a speed where you can "stop safelyon your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear". You DO need the "Inapproptiate !" bit. Inappropraite = NOT SAFE = "Not able to stop safely on your side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear"
QED. Speeding can be as simple as achieving a speed of 25 on a 20 limit road. And in most cases ,up till recently these roads could have been rated as 40 . IF you were driving down a car lined road and a child ran out and you failed to stop ,then that would be "innappropriate " speed. It might also be excess speed for the conditions. BUT, it might not be speed in excess of the limit.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

You don't need the "inappropriate" bit though do you. If speed was listed as one of the factors in a crash then it was inappropriate by default right?[/quote]
It is simply stating that it was inappropriate for the conditions.
Factor means it was not the cause of the accident it was only a contribution.
If people recognise and anticipate conditions then they will slow and be travelling at an appropriate rate.

This is not to say that a road user ought not to have still anticipated the event, and taken all appropriate action to have avoided the incident but people make mistakes. However this is another part of this situation.
A speed that is 'exceeding the speed limit' may not have any factor on the accident either.
Excessive speed can be within the limit but inappropriate for the conditions.
Some speed may have no causal effect on the accident and is only a factor.
Only 6% of accidents have speed as a factor which includes 'too fast for conditions' and 'excessive speed'.

Please note that this topic has become distant, so I will split this thread if this discussion continues here.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

TV program Motorway cops ,features Police in NZ. One of the features in a new licence ( possibly something to be thought of in a UK graduated licence ) is curtailment of hours. But why restrict a driver to daylight hours. Restrict the amountof hours, perhaps, but not the available hours. Perhaps if this is an idea, then a logbook is the answer .Similar to a pilot logbook. And set a requirement of so many dark hours in training. Watching so many NZ & Australian programs I see a great similarity to UK laws introduced in the past few years. BUT WHY restrict new drivers during darkness. If needed, lets have them supervised in the dark . EDUCATION should be the way forward, not restriction .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I agree, driving in darkness is a skill that needs to be taught/learnt but I think the point is, that many young drivers go out after dark with their mates, have a few drinks or whatever and act the goat behind the wheel, which they wouldn't do as much in daylight hours.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

The USA has done this for years. When a driver of 14yrs is out on the road and there is a daylight restriction it tends to make more sense as they have limited experience. In some States the daylight hours nearer to the Equator happen far more quickly so it almost becomes a curfew.
Of one learns in daylight after gaining some good experience first and then cope with dark situations one has that experience to call on and so tend to make less mistakes.

I agree training is and does happen. I can think of being trained during the winter which makes me think should if one learns and obtains a licence during the summer months one should have to then take training and pass a smaller, simpler test in the winter perhaps ... but .. is it really necessary. We must remember that everything that is altered or changed must be done with real evidence that it will have a beneficial effect on road safety.
No amount of hours specified, will ever stop anyone from drinking & then driving ... so to what real benefit might this really serve ? I think that it will be very limited ... but where is the evidence and proof?

Let's not forget that we have had the best drivers / riders in the world for decades without this so is it really necessary.
We have encouraged during this period of dropping from this accolade for new drivers to be taught by schools and less by parents, might this be changing attitudes or contributing to bad attitudes in some way ? Is it other social habits or upbringing ? Where does the real problem evolve?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

The obvious problem with time restrictions is exemplified by the recent fatal accident by a young man "racing" to get home before his insurance imposed curfew.

What happens if a youngster gets trapped in a bad traffic jam and darkness falls...

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

To me it would be far better if night driving was included during the learning process while under instruction and included driving on rural road so that proper use of the headlights is learnt.