Safe Speed Forums

Of course it will happen.
But can you be sure that it's not a case of saving one person from being hit at above 30mph at the expense of 20 others being hit at just below 30?
If the majority of such collisions are caused by factors other than exceeding the speed limit then that could very well be the case.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

The comment related to the suggestion of a campaign along the lines of "be alert - don't hit anyone" which is somewhat vague - people won't take anything from that.

Indeed, the comment was meant to illustrate why there needs to be something that gets drivers to think about an aspect of their driving - "think once, think twice, think bike" is a good example of this.



Oh yes - but there is only so much that can be done via the behavioural approach on the roads.

I haven't seen anything that suggests that that is happening - after all, we'd be recording significant rises in injury accidents if it was (as people have noted, you don't just bounce off at just-below-30) - but that doesn't appear to be bourne out in reality.

You just need to look. Accidents are just that - they dont get shared out evenly on a daily basis.
Here are the figures for Cumbria - a large county, with a small population - many of them in smaller rural towns and villages - many of which have had reductions in the limits at locations in and out of the built up areas.

January 2004 1 fatal 25 Serious injuries
January 2005 2 fatal 24 Serious injuries
January 2006 3 fatal 12 Serious injuries

These statistics mean little in isolation but when fatals reduce, SCP's will quote fatals - when they rise, they quote KSI's.
If they were doing their job, they would not have to be so selective with the figures.
Cumbria are now claiming a 70% reduction, using Jan 1999 figures to Jan 2005 - despite they did not exist before April 2003 - over four years of reductions without them, adopted to make their woeful figures seem better. I hope their well paid statistician is paid enough to salve his conscience!
Talk to paramedics, talk to policemen who are prepared to give an honest opinion, and ask them what the causes and effects of cameras have been.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Who says? What's the limit? Have we reached it? Have we even characterised it?

I and many others believe that behavioural approaches are a) the great untapped resource and b) virtually limitless.

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

I can't let this go.

Fatalities amongst vehicle occupants are increasing. Pedestrian activity is decreasing markedly. Cars are getting safer. Injury accidents are very significantly under-reported, and the level of under-reporting is likely to be influenced by confidence in the Police.

With all this going on, it's hopeless to look at a trend and assume that it has a meaning divorced from all the other trends. But we can break things down a bit. If we get rid of injury crashes and concentrate on fatalities we virtually eliminate under-reporting. There's little or nothing going on that actually reduces pedestrian risk without ALSO reducing vehicle occupant risk. Since vehicle occupant risk is on the increase, it is reasonable to suggest that most of the 'benefit' apparent in pedestrian figures is due to reduced pedestrian activity.

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

Why the knee jerk reaction? What possible basis do you have for this?

Do you have a role in road safety? If so then I am not suprised that we seem to be running into a road safety brick wall?

Driver behaviour is critical to road safety...we need people to think safe not enforce 'safe' rules.

Are you an engineer?

I know the purpose of the message. The side effect of this message will be to reinforce the view that as long as I am within the limit everything will be fine. There are a lot of these people out there.
The advert with the bloke driving at 35 who reaches down to change his cassette and then looks up to see the traffic has stopped and he has to slam on the brakes. The message was "DON'T SPEED!" Unbelievable!
The message obviously should be "PAY ATTENTION!" .
I'm afraid it's all very poorly thought out and even dangerous thinking.

[quote="fergl100

I'm afraid it's all very poorly thought out and even dangerous thinking.[/quote]


I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is all thought up on the spot -Would suggest new motto for the road safety advertisers -"Forward thinking and common sense do not belong in this organisation"

_________________
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 misunderstand. I'm suggesting that the causes of the below-30mph accidents which are already happening may be being ignored. No recent increase is implied.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I think its a fair point that there are "creative" statistics banded around by all, and indeed I think this is a factor of the controversy surrounding cameras - all parties will dig up anything they can use to support their side.

This certainly isn't a good thing, but I'm not sure there is an easy solution to this.




Why do you presume I don't?

Its all very well saying that, but you have to consider the constraints of public opinion, cost, capacity, and so on. You can't just click your fingers and make things happen just like that.



However it has been shown that reduced levels of a category of traffic can lead to an increase in accident involving that category as others around them fail to appreciate the needs and risks associated with that road user group - so it isn't necessarily that simple.

I'd be interested to see how you come to the conclusion that vehicle occupant fatalities appears to be static around the 1720 mark (using 3 year moving averages to smooth out random variations, and the 1997-2004 data) (the 1994-1998 average was 1762),

Additionally, KSI occupant casualty numbers appear to show a steady decline over the period 1997-2004 - and the same appears to hold for all (reported) injury accidents.

Similarily, the 2004 figure for number of pedestrians killed was 66% of the 1997 figure (67% for KSI, 76% for all severities). The drop in pedestrian activity cannot explain this alone.

Again - if you have a different analysis feel free to point me towards it.

I disagree - all accident sites are assessed using the statistics and further investigation. Where speed isn't an issue, that doesn't mean everything is dropped. Other possibilities are properly considered and are acted on.

Contrary to the perception, road safety is not simply speed orientated. There are plenty of other issues, and these are properly considered (though there is the catch that this is a democracy, and when the public or their representatives consider speed to be an issue, that has to be acknowledged, investigated, and acted upon if thats what the public want).

Who said anything about 'just like that'? And you can't smother the country with Gatsos 'just like that' either.

You said: "there is only so much that can be done via the behavioural approach on the roads." And I rate that as wild and totally without justification. I note that you have not even tried to justify it.



The national annual fatality stats are big enough numbers to provide a reasonable degree of 'smoothing' except for smaller groups.



That effect is mainly present for comparatively 'rare' road user types (especially equestrians and cyclists). I strongly doubt that it is significant for pedestrian activity on most road types.



Yes, the figures are about static, but we know very well that substantially safer vehicles are filtering into the national fleet, so we know that risk values must be increasing.



The serious injury stats (which dominate the KSI stats) are not even remotely a reliable series at present. Have a look at: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html . God knows what's happening to them, but they are just totally unbelieveable in the wider context.

I think the genuine reasons for reducing pedestrian fatalities are:

1) Reduced pedestrian activity
2) Increased fear of traffic. (We're hyping it up so much that it's hardly surprising.)

Look at the growth of the school run for an example - many parents declare that the 'roads are too dangerous' to let their offspring walk to school.

And consider the impact of speed cameras on non-drivers: "The government has had to put in all these cameras to make drivers safer and they still get caught in their millions - drivers must be really dangerous".

I think we have done virtually nothing to genuinely deliver a safer environment for pedestrians in the last decade.

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

ndp,

why do you think that the behvioural approach isn't worth the effort?

You really ought to update that page with latest statistics, Paul. Would it change any of the comments/conclusions?

Yes. No.

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

Thats not what I said - I said there is only so much that can be done by behavioural approaches, due to the various constraints I highlighted.

Indeed (and indeed, that hasn't happened - given the vast number of hoops that have to be jumped through to get camera enforcement)



I have highlighted the various constraints that exist. If you can find a way around these constraints, feel free to divulge it.

And I note you still aven't answered my concerns regarding your simplistic analysis of 20mph zone accident severities, effects of speed cameras in motorway roadworks, and the fatality reduction trends on the continent either - so you're in no position to be throwing stones.







That fails to take into account any risk compensation that may arise from safer vehicles.



But yet when I raised issue concerning the reporting of accidents you replied -



One rule for me and another for you?




Indeed. I hear certain websites would have you believe drivers are staring at the speedo and not showing any regard whatsoever for what is happening in the road in front....




Do you have any evidence to suggest that?

Its certainly been reported that people claim to feel safer where cameras have been installed, due to a perceived/real reduction in traffic speeds.



Why to Living Streets (nee the Pedestrians Association) disagree with regard to speed cameras?[/url]

Given the difficulty, why do you think that they're so hell-bent on putting cameras up?



But they use similarly limited data to justify cameras. As you say, you cannot rely on data with small sample sizes, and that such data is subject to interpretation - unless there exists a plausible mechanism which supports the data, or by which you can predict what the data is going to do. And in the case of speed cameras, such a mechanism appears to be singularly lacking.



Can you quantify that effect, or is that just supposition?



What the public sees and hears from the media and the govt is little more than speed, speed, speed - ad nauseam.




And your risk compensation only applies to drivers, and not to pedestrians, does it?



Why do you think that they have any more credibility than SafeSpeed?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler