Safe Speed Forums

I not sure whether any of you have seen these figures yet, but I thought they may be of interest.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_tr ... 004_en.htm

The accident statistics are in Part 3: Transport

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

Buried in this are the following numbers that are encouraging for the pro-camera brigade. Number of accidents involving personal injury (UK) -



This is not corrected for distance. If it were, it would show better improvements since the early 90's. This corresponds (in time) to camera introduction. Could there be a link?

_________________
I stole this .sig

They started twisting the personal injury "statistics" about the same time as they started spinning the benefits of cameras?

As we all know: the falling deaths figures started to slow at the same time, and now appear to have reversed (including corrected for mileage).

But they are a bit harder to hide.

Is that why they try to ignore them?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Here are the DfT official GB figures for crashes by severity:



The trend you note simply isn't there. How come the figures are so different? Can it really be down to Northern Ireland? (The difference between GB and UK).

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

The figures are roughly the same, just BW has cherry-picked 1990 and conveniently left out '91 to '94 because they dont help his case, being before the advent of widespread speed cameras and lower than many of the post camera years.

Rumbled!

i have read quotes of 3m speeding penalties in 2003, any idea of the figure for 2004?

Or do we wait for January FOI?

Comparisons with other yrs would be useful.

If already on this site please just re-direct me.

Years to 2001 on:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html (table 1)

2003: estimate: 2.1 million (source ACPO)
2004: estimate: 3.0 million (source ACPO)

The Home Office publishes a figure about 12 to 15 months in arrears, so we're expecting 2002 official figures around February 2005. The latest current official figure is for 2001.

FOI won't help with this one because they will just say (and it's probably legit): "figures in preparation".

[Edited to correct years. Sorry.]

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

Paul

Thanks for that.

1. Any indications on the 2004 level of convictions? The trend would seem to indicate circa 4m. FYI The AA expect the number to have levelled out at 3m.

2. Presumably you saw the AA submission to Parliament in Oct 2003? If not I have a copy.

3. Where on your site could I find the number of speed cameras each year?

4. There is a growth in cameras at junctions, any official stats on cameras and convictions?

No rush, please enjoy New Year.

Yeah. Sorry. The 3 million estimate applies to 2004. I got the years wrong. I've fixed the previous post.



I'd like to see that. I'm not aware that I've seen it before.




I don't have those figures. It's very hard data to come by. I believe that no national figures were compiled until recently, and it's rather a lot of trouble to go around every police force gathering the data.



Nothing much beyond what we've discussed here and the Home office statistics. See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/police.html

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

Homer, it is you who have been rumbled - for not reading the original European report, which presents the figures in the same way. Homer, please read the material before you castigate anyone, else people will think that you are just averse to the facts.

_________________
I stole this .sig

There are different accounting procedures that are harmonised to a Europe wide basis - that is why the difference exists.

The KSI figures speak for themselves anyway - 32K is miles less than 45K. The full figures show the trend, more clearly as massive introduction occurs. We'd be mad to accept a return to 50,000 KSI pa (or much more when corrected for new traffic levels). The current rate, kept in check by cameras, is down by a third.

_________________
I stole this .sig

[my bolding]
Basingwerk, what exactly do you mean by "kept in check by cameras"?
I am interested to know on what evidence you base that statement.
In your opinion, could other factors also have played a role in the reduction?

Trouble is, with fatal and injury crashes showing no such trend, we have to be very concerned about what the "KSI" figures actually mean. Until someone can properly explain the trends on these two pages I don't think we can or should trust the KSI figures to tell us anything at all:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/serious2.html

I've done a load of work trying to model how it might be possible for SI to drop while K and I stay still, and presently I just don't believe the improvements in SI can possibly be real safety improvements.

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

Of course. Traffic calming measures, slower limits in some areas and traffic light cameras etc. have also played thier part. The one thing that hasn't changed is human nature - that is why we need a stick as well as a carrot.

_________________
I stole this .sig

The mystery of why the KSI figures have fallen in an inverse relationship to their increased use as proof that speed cameras work, while K (and other measures) have increased in a direct relationship to the spread of speed cameras is being discussed here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1475

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Have you tried reporting an accident to the police

They stopped taking accident reports, so hence their figures reduce.

_________________
Steve