Paul et al - a few thoughts here and a couple of questions.
You say
Quote:
but we also have ongoing improvements in vehicle safety, road engineering safety and post accident medical care thought to be worth about a 7% reduction per annum when taken together
Where do you get 7% from, or is it just a gut feel?
One or two of my friends are suggesting you have been very selective with your extracts from the DTI report, latching on to "deaths are up" but failing to recognise, for example, the accident rate per 100 milion vehicle kilometres is down by 5%. (tying in pretty well with the 7% {your figure} that should have come about as a result of road/vehicle improvements). Accidents overall are down by 3% and the number of injured down 4%. Child casualties are down 8%, pedstrains 6% and pedal cyclists killed down 12%.
I personally believe all this ties in with speed cameras
on open roads forcing a speed below the otherwise uninhibited 90%ile speed for the road. People feel safer thanks to travelling at a lower speed, get complacent, multiplexing their attention prgressively more to immaterial aspects, and simply do not slow down when it matters, making the speed of impact the speed of travel immediately prior to the accident instead of the substantially reduced speed of travel were the party/ies concentrating to a greater extent.
I think, whilst speed cameras in black spots and in built up areas may also have a detrimental effect, people are less selfish and
still do not speedo-watch in such situations - they are likely well below the limit anyway if pedestrians and cyclists are potentially en pris.
Is it worth a supplementary release identifying something along these lines to preempt accusations of selectivity?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
