Safe Speed Forums

Scamera press release

Notice he is careful not to include the actual CAUSATION of the crashes that he mentions.

Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership
PO BOX 142, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX17 1UZ
Telephone 01295 731810
Fax 01295 731811
www.saferroads.org

Casualty Figures Cause Concern
*** Media invite to Roadside Check on Thursday 28 th June – see notes***

Drink driving, mobile phone use & exceeding the speed limit have all led to a rise
in the Thames Valley casualty figures for the second year in a row.
Police and local authorities are today expressing concern about the rising level of
casualties in the region.
Since the year 2000 the overall reductions are still quite good, the number of
people killed or seriously injured are still down 28.8%, and all casualties are down
by over 14% for the period. However, there are a number of elements where the
figures seem to be growing and drivers are being urged to take extra care.
Casualties recorded in crashes where the driver was on a mobile phone rose
sharply in 2006 (up 43.9% on 2005) and collisions where the vehicle was
exceeding the speed limit resulted in 20.9% more casualties. Alcohol related
casualties have also risen in the last year by 8.7%.
The Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership, who represent police and highway
authorities in the region also point to a worrying trend among the ’40-somethings’
Casualty rates from this age group have risen by 8% since the year 2000; in fact
the 2006 level is higher than anything that the partnership have since their records
began in 1990.
There is also some good news in today’s results; road deaths in 2006 were down
on the number in 2005 by 4% to 143. The number of children killed or seriously
injured has also fallen to its lowest level of just 72; that’s 47.8% down on the level in
the year 2000.

Thames Valley Safety Partnership members :-
Thames Valley Police : Oxfordshire County Council : Buckinghamshire County Council : Milton Keynes Council : Slough Borough Council : Royal
Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead : Bracknell Forest Borough Council : Wokingham District Council : Reading Borough Council : West Berkshire
Council : Thames Valley Magistrates Courts Services : Crown Prosecution Service :
The Highways Agency
NEWS RELEASE
Further details from:
Dan CAMPSALL, Communications Manager
Tel: 01295 731812
Mob: 07967 446506
E-mail: prmgr@saferroads.org
[/url]

Why don't they ever publish them as absolute figures? (or at least relative to the overall net figure). This figure could mean there was a rise to 59 from 41 (yes the maths works out), so this could actually be a drop in the ocean compared to the ~30k casualties every year.

Sounds to me like they could be trying to find a scapegoat for their poor policies.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Sounds nice, means nothing!

How many collisions were there? What were the causes of those collisions?

Could have been two full busses, without seatbelts, colliding at 31mph because the driver fell asleep!

Exactly, I agree with you both.

Strange occurance with regards to the road deaths though. In an FOI requestthose killed in 2005 were listed as being 130. In the press release below they state that the 2006 figures are 4% lower than 2005 but there were 143 road deaths in 2006 which of course denotes a large increase.

Must have been a typo or something, I couldn't possibly believe that someone in TVSRP would ever 'massage' the figures.

It's all crashing down around their ears!

Possibly because they want to put a 'spin' on the results that supports an undeclared purpose? Is 41/59 the lowest integer value combination that fits the maths? Not sure how to calulcate that, other than brute force.

I used a spreadsheet to quickly generate a heap of numbers (n/.439 , n+1/.439.... ) and saw what came close to a round number.
Of course you could multiply the two numbers by a common factor (like 118/82, 410/590....) to get the same figure.

Can I really say that I'm surprised to get a perfect match at such low numbers?

And you've noticed there was no indication of whether the mobile use was hand-held or hands-free?

What's the lowest integer set for the alcohol related casualties (13/12 is 8.3%)

Absolutely. Which of course is inevitable if you base policy on a load of cr*p.

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

Given that we know alcohol misuse fairs much higher in the crash stats, coupled with the lower resolution of the quoted figure (actually 8.7%) I wouldn't try to make the same kind of judgement.

Also,

But I thought vehicles were overall slowing down? in which case there is only one answer: the limits have been dropped such that 'exceeding the limit' now plays a bigger part in the crash stats. Make the limit ‘unnaturally low’ then enforce it when people inevitably exceed it - I can't say I didn't see that coming!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Noooooo!

Excessive speed crashes are BOUND to go up if driver quality drops. The thing that gets more likely when driver quality drops is the slow down when necessary hazard response fails more frequently.

I've been predicting - and observing - this for years. See, for example: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html - the section 'Excessive speed accidents'.

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

Ah, I think I see where we divert.
I wholeheartedly agree with your stance on 'excessive speed' crashes; however, I was referring specifically to 'exceeding the speed limit' crashes.

There's a big population of vehicles exceeding the speed limit (much bigger than the population of any-sort-of-speed crashes. What we're going to see is the degree of under-representaion gradually reducing as drivers get worse - it's good driving that causes the under-representation.

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

Yeah, it took me a while but I think I see your point.
I guess we conclude that there are two answers?

'fraid not. Although I'm pretty sure that the one I gave is the biggie there are several further possibles to consider:

- sensitisation to 'speed and accidents' is leading to a higher degree of reporting of exceeding the speed limit as a contributory factor. It might lead to over-reporting, or an continually increasing degree of over-reporting.

- Lack of roads Policing (or other factors) is leading to a growing 'nutter class' who are pre-disposed to high speed crashes.

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