Thanks for the figures Teabelly.....but speeding motorists are just SO much easier to catch !! :(
And how much of the innatention percentage are those staring at their speedo to ensure they are not doing 31 or 32 (or 41 or 42, etc, etc) instead of keeping their eyes and their minds on the road ahead and events around them?
I am also a little surprised that frustration and/or road rage doesn't feature in the table.
|
|
If you read the report, and the changes they're proposing to the collection methods, the speeding figure will be much larger next time. I await the government/media frenzy 'huge rise in accidents caused by speeding', when all that's happened is a change in the recording process.
|
|
|
>>And how much of the innatention percentage are those staring >>at their speedo to ensure they are not doing 31 or 32 (or 41 >>or 42, etc, etc) instead of keeping their eyes and their >>minds on the road ahead and events around them?
Can't agree with that. An experienced driver can easily differentiate between 30mph and 40mph by engine note, and observational judgement of speed (how quickly they are passing their surroundings). The speedo, which is already in the drivers line of sight, just needs to be glanced at, whilst still watching the road, to confirm speed is at or below the limit.
The opposing view would be how much of the innatention percentage involves drivers who are also paying innatention to their speed?
|
Alan,
I think VDM was asking how many drivers were looking at the speedo to tell the difference between (say) 29 and 31 mph or between 39 and 41 mph, not 30 and 40.
I agree that any driver who has passed their test should be able to tell the difference between 30 and 40. However, I for one can't tell the difference between 29 and 31 without the aid of a speedo, and there are areas of the country where one will get me a fine & points and the other won't. Thus, when in a camera-controlled area I will pay more attention to my speedo rather than judge speed by the rate at which the view moves past.
Now, the speedo is emphatically not a line-of-sight instrument, I'm afraid. First, it is below the line of sight and requires diversion of attention. Second, it is much closer than the world outside and hence requires your eyes to re-focus on the speedo and then re-focus on the road. So there is a momentary distraction caused by looking down.
The net result is that at the most dangerous areas, HMG installs a speed camera and makes us look inside the car to check speed just as we approach the blackspot. Not a good recipe.
Interestingly, those clever signs that light up to warn us of a hazard if we are above a preset speed have a success rate several times that of cameras, in terms of accident reduction. They are line of sight devices that are in view, at the same distance, and do not require us to divert atention away from the hazard.
If only there was a way to make them raise revenue then perhaps we might see more of them....
|
Now, the speedo is emphatically not a line-of-sight instrument, I'm afraid. First, it is below the line of sight and requires diversion of attention. Second, it is much closer than the world outside and hence requires your eyes to re-focus on the speedo and then re-focus on the road. So there is a momentary distraction caused by looking down.
Perhaps head-up displays (HUD), as in the new E60 5 series is the way forward?
Chad.
|
|
|
|
I am also a little surprised that frustration and/or road rage doesn't feature in the table.
It does, under the heading "behaviour".
This report confirms what we have known all along; speed doesn't cause accidents. It's the poor judgement and application of speed as a part of the overall accident equation. Anyone trying to turn this study into support of the view that "Speed kills" needs to pull their head out of their Guardian-lined bucket of sand and have a good look around them.
ND. Most definitely NOT posting as a Moderator
|
If drivers can't keep their speed below a certain figure without staring at their speedometer they shouldn't be on the roads.
If it's such a problem for them, instead of aiming to drive at 30 they could always try 29, 28 or any of the other numbers...
Don't think there's any surprise in the causation figures - the common factor is the number of accidents caused by drivers, and until they start taking some responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming someone/something else there's always going to be the temptation for increased legislation.
Ironic how the only time you see the phrase "speed kills" these days is when it's quoted by pro-speeding campaigners.....
|
Some time in the far away future, the driving test and subsequent training, will be to standards around the level of the current IAM training and test?
Matt35
PS - 8-45 am - a bit early to be dreaming!
|
You have a good point there Matt. Driver behaviour is the problem, so better driving training will help.
Where it falls down is that the current low levels of training aren't adequately enforced. Better to get that addressed first, methinks.
|
|
|
|
If drivers can't keep their speed below a certain figure without staring at their speedometer they shouldn't be on the roads.
Couldn't agree more. The issue is of accuracy. Try a car with a digital speedo and see for yourself how speed naturally varies with inclination, wind, etc etc. Then go to Northamptonshire and get caught at 31mph.
If it's such a problem for them, instead of aiming to drive at 30 they could always try 29, 28 or any of the other numbers...
OK. Aim at 28. No problem. Just mind the hill & the sudden tailwind. Next time, learn from experience and aim for 26. Where do you stop? Eventually we are at a point where people are afraid to drive at legal speeds for fear of an unforgiving enforcement system whose penalties are (in this area) disproportionate.
Don't think there's any surprise in the causation figures - the common factor is the number of accidents caused by drivers, and until they start taking some responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming someone/something else there's always going to be the temptation for increased legislation.
So why is 100% of the enforcement effort directed at 12.5% of the accidents? What about the other 87.5%? Surely we can make better progress directing our efforts at those, which form part of the common thread of "not really paying attention" that underlines all 100%. But this would require driver education and traffic police, which (a) do not raise revenue and (b) have been largely displaced by cameras over recent years.
Ironic how the only time you see the phrase "speed kills" these days is when it's quoted by pro-speeding campaigners.....
Speak for yourself. I see it often enough.
Please do not characterise me as "pro-speeding", though, as this would be inaccurate. I regard excessive speed for the circumstances as reprehensible and worthy of sanction. I also believe that speed limits should be set sensibly, and take the view that whilst most are set correctly, some are not. Most of those that are not correct are too low, although some are too high. I also believe that the rules for placement of speed cameras can, ironically, be used to justify placement at areas where the speed limit is too low.
My personal experience is that (a) whilst some cameras are justified and have alerted me to potential danger ahead, some are not and are are only explicable as money-raisers and (b) that since the introduction of speed cameras, the standard of road safety in this country has declined. As I have said before, I fel less safe now than I did ten years ago.
|
|
Patently - as I understand them, the figures don't state that 12.5% of accidents are caused by speeding, just that speeding is a contributing factor in 12.5% of them. How major a contributing factor isn't clear from what I've read.
|
|
|
Patently,
Just getting back to you....
I don't accept that having a slight wind behind you (pardon the phrase!) or going slightly downhill is a valid excuse for speeding. There are brakes and lower gears after all. I do not, however, agree with prosecuting at 31mph, and most areas I know that is not the policy - I presume you have experience of this and they're not just local urban myths?
If you can come up with a way of detecting a driver "not paying attention" before an accident occurs, and without having a police patrol every 200 yards, you will make your fortune. I remember in the pre-cameras era people complained about how many police traffic patrols there were, and said they should concentrate on getting them on the streets to deal with muggers. Hence the use of available technology to reduce required manpower.
I agree we should direct "our efforts" at other causes, but the option is open to drivers to take responsibility for this and increase their standards by themselves, and most choose not to. It is a fact that 100% of accidents will be made worse by higher speed - the cause might not be attributable, but the consequences in terms of damage, injury and death might. Also, as far as I remember, even when tickets were issue by humans rather than machines, they still cost money, so they still raised revenue.
I'd like to see any recent examples of "speed kills" being used - maybe this is another thing unique to Northamptonshire?
I did not characterise you as pro-speeding, but if you take "speeding" to mean the offence of breaking the speed limit, aren't you? People seem to think they automatically know best what is a safe speed and what isn't but is it not possible that there may be factors not immediately obious to the driver - after all, if drivers were so perfcet in their judgement we wouldn't have so many accidents, would we?
I agree about setting realistic speed limits, but then there would be no excuse for breaking them - and people would still want to be allowed to go a bit over. The role of cameras was not orignally intended to be an indication of an accident blackspot, but to be a deterrent to speeding. This role has been diluted by political (in)action. Warning signs and lowered speed limits should be enough for drivers to slow down - they should not need to be forced to do so by a camera.
Driving standards have indeed declined, but this is not the fault of cameras. It is the fault of drivers - no-one and nothing else.
|
SR,
I think we are actually of very similar minds. I too regard being significantly over the speed limit as reprehensible on virtually all non-motorway roads. Excessive speed for the circumstances is always reprehensible.
I accept that you didn't characterise me as pro-speeding - I was trying to pre-empt this to explain that my views on speed enforcment did not flow from a desire to drive fast regardless.
I don't have experience of 31mph prosecution - in fact my license is clean [as of today ;-) ]. It however widely reported that this is the case, which is enough to divert attention from the road around the driver to the speedo instead - just as the driver approaches a blackspot.
Brundstrom said that in his opinion there is no difference between allowing your speed to drift over 30 and allowing a knife to drift into someone. I think that there is a world of difference, in the intention and mens rea of the offender. This highlights the problem, though - that speeding is enforced via a mechanical system that issues penalties for speed alone. I feel that a police patrol could distinguish in the grey area between "mere" speeding and excessive speed liable to cause danger and issue an appropriate penalty, either a stiff talking to or a prosecution.
There is no linkage today between severity of the offence and severity of the punishment at the middle/lower end of speeding offences. You jump straight from legal behaviour to a penalty suited to the middle range.
In the end, the accident statistics have not improved since we started to rely on cameras. That was their purpose - to make us safer. They have failed to do so.
|
In the end, the accident statistics have not improved since we started to rely on cameras. That was their purpose - to make us safer. They have failed to do so.
patently, that may be partly because their effects have been localised by making the cameras visible. That has effectively been a signal to drivers that they only need to obey the limits where a camera is signed :(
However, as far I have seen, cameras have been successful in reducing accidents in the areas where they are installed (see, for example, the instance of my local road referred to in my other post at tinyurl.com/2u3wu )
Another reason may be the parallel problem of a reduction in other types of traffic policing -- which I agree with others is a bad thing. Cameras should have been an extra tool in policing the roads, not the only one.
Yet another reason may be the increase in traffic densities.
A further factor may be the increasing performance of modern cars, and their greater safety in the event of an accident -- there is plenty of evidence that drivers tend to drive up to their perceived safety limit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can't access the full report but it does surprise me somewhat. Certainly there's plenty of just plain dangerous driving about and I'd love to see the police crack down on it just as hard as they do on speeding. However, does the report mention what part excess speed plays in determining the severity of accidents and liklihood of fatalities for example? Does it draw any conclusions as to whether excess speed is a contributory factor in the outcomes of accidents as opposed to the actual cause of incidents? How many accidents are caused, say, by inattention and compounded by the fact that those caught up in the aftermath are driving too fast? Over the years I've seen quite a bit of footage of motorway accidents in which a relatively minor error by one driver causes a massive pile up because those behind could not slow down in time.
|
Surely though that would be caused mainly by inattention, and driving to close? I appreciate your point, but again in that scenario speed is way down the list of causative factors.
It is true however, that those accidents caused by speeding are far more likely to have more serious injury outcomes.
|
|
|
Over the years I've seen quite a bit of footage of motorway accidents in which a relatively minor error by one driver causes a massive pile up because those behind could not slow down in time.
From what I see on the motorways, that's not generally caused by excessive speed either, it's more due to the ridiculously small distances that the majority of people think are acceptable braking areas.
|
From what I see on the motorways, that's not generally caused by excessive speed either, it's more due to the ridiculously small distances that the majority of people think are acceptable braking areas.
Don't worry, someone will be along in a minute to explain that the braking distances are fine, it's just the speed that's excessive (If we all drive on M-ways 20mph, the typical braking distance is spot-on).
|
Speed is the cause of every single accident. If all the cars involved had been stationary prior to the accident then there would have been no accident. Thus without speed there would have been no accident. Therefore speed causes all accidents. QED.
Alternative view:
70mph is capable of being safe on a motorway if all involved drive sensibly, including keeping their distance.
70mph is without doubt unsafe when going past a primary school at 8:55am on a weekday.
Therefore the safety of a specific speed is dependent on the circumstances and matters are not as simple as they might be painted. Safety is therefore a function of driver ability and awareness.
So, to improve safety, improve driver ability & awareness. Except that we don't. And our accident statistics are worsening after decades of improvement prior to the introduction of speed cameras. Oops.
|
|
Yes that may be true Patently but without knowing what the accident figures would have been had cameras not been introduced (everything else also being equal) you can't draw any safe conclusions. As you've said there are many other factors which contribute to the number of accidents on our roads and personaly I feel speed cameras are very low down on the list. Some people, for example, claim cameras cause rapid braking and hence accidents but surely in such a set of circumstances it's not the camera which is to blame it's the driver slowing down because he's either going too fast or not paying attention. Likewise anyone who runs into the resulting wreckage.
|
The problem is that there is very rarely a controlled environment in which to test these things. Usually, cameras are erected following a local rise in the accident rate. This often (and quite rightly) also prompts engineering changes to the road. So when the local accident rate falls we can't tell if this is because of the camera, the engineering work, or just a statistical return to the mean.
In the absence of a controllable study, common sense is all you have to go on.
A further concern is that speed cameras are seen as an inherently unfair system by much of the population (myself not included - my view is more qualified). This has (IMHO) led to a general decline in respect for motoring law, the vast majority of which is fair and essential for our safety.
What we do know is that UK road casualties were on a steady downward trend until road safety policy was shifted to rely on speed cameras. Despite fining nearly 2% of the population last year, that decline has now halted. As cars have steadily improved since then, you would expect a continued background decline.
We are getting something wrong in this country.
|
I can't find the reference but I read recently that if 2% of the population wish to break a particular law then that law becomes unenforceable. I think the research was from america. If nearly 2% of the driving population were fined last year then we've almost reached that threshold.
The continued lack of a downward trend in casualties is a concern. The beginning of speed cameras coincided with the wider use of airbags, removal of free eye tests and reduction of traffic police numbers. I would also add that the increase in illegal drivers could have a lot to do with it (why can you buy a car in this country without providing id and a valid driving licence?!)
teabelly
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah Bazza, you've made my point about how these figures have been arrived at - you could argue that driving too close was the cause or that driving too fast in the conditions was the cause or indeed, that the drivers behind weren't paying sufficient attention to what was going on in front of them. Surely, in anything other than say a low speed minor rear end shunt at a junction, the reason for the accident and the severity of the outcome are likely to be due to different factors.
|
A fair point, volvoman, but it leads to the blanket reduction in speeds of all drivers to compensate for those who can't/won't pay attention.
The other side of the coin is that high speed roads such as motorways require higher levels of attention and anticipation. We should try to get that message across and ban those who show that they cannot.
Minor accidents are not pursued (I speak from experience!). If they were, and if points were imposed, then those who were incapable of paying attention would eventually be off the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should add that, in the case of the motorway pile up mentioned above, the initial cause may well be deemed to be inattention but what conclusions would/could be drawn about the role of the other drivers involved and the final outcome. Who would determine whether for example driving too fast, driving too close, inattention or whatever on the part of any or all of the other drivers was the primary reason why what started as a minor incident became a pile up?
|
|
How many of these accisents caused by excessive speed were caused by gross speeders driving cars (probably stolen) with no proper documentation, probably banned already etc... being chased by a helicopter at night. I live on a main road with a 40mph limit, very weekend night I would say there are at least 10 cars going past at 100mph, some being chased by Police cars. I find it deeply offensive that an honest motorist going to work at 31mph in a 30 mph zone is lumped in with some drug-crazed criminal going 100mph with no license, insurance, etc..
|
I think we've had this asked before but has anyone on the backroom actually been done for 31 in a 30 or whatever? None of us constantly look at the speedo to make the difference between 31 and 30. Most people I know of who have been done for speeding were at least 8 or 9 mph over the limit.
Accidents are caused by someone's bad driving and 40mph in a 30 is usually (not always - location time of day etc) one example of bad driving.
|
I haven't, and those who I know were at least 35. This includes on at 38 at 4am (on the way to an airport) on a major trnk road that switched between 30 and 40 frequently.
I understand that Northamptonshire have stated that they will enforce at that level although I have not seen it myself.
Regardless of whether it is actually done, we know that it could be done and therefore feel the need to watch for the difference. I certainly watch tbe speedo when going past a camera. Thus the harm is done.
|
|
|
|
·Inattention 25.8%
* Failure to judge other person's path or speed 22.6%
* Looked but did not see 19.7%
* Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless 18.4%
* Failed to look 16.3%
* Lack of judgement of own path 13.7%
* Excessive speed 12.5%
The original post gave the figures above from the report.
These figures stack up to 129%. They should not be taken as a breakdown of all accidents There are two headings,
Preciptating Factors (amounting to 100.1%)
Contributory Factors
I gave up here, just the personal details added up to 133.3% .
I think the percentages are meaningless, the findings are probably more important.
|
The reason the individual percentages add up to more than 100% is surely because in some/many accidents more than one of the factors listed is involved. As I see it the figures simply show the proportion of accidents in which each of the factors listed was found to be a cause, NOT the only cause.
Also, what sort of accidents were included in the study? All reported accidents or just serious accidents involving say personal injuries or fatalities. Surely this must be known if we are to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions about how serious a factor each of the categories is.
|
I don't doubt that the aforementioned auto-illuuminating signs could be effective, but the only ones I have encountered, a few miles from where I live, are nothing but hilarious.
Approaching from either direction at any speed (they illuminate for slow-moving bicycles) they advise 'slow down' with a graphic showing a right-hand bend. This is correct in either direction because you are in fact approaching a Z bend! Right, followed by left. Both of which can comfortably be taken at the 30mph limit on that road.
What a waste of technology.
|
auto-illuuminating signs
I like them, it gives you a sense of achievement to get them lit up.
|
|
Well spotted! (watching your posts carefully now)
|
|
Take no notice RF, I was so embarrassed at the typo I missed the point you were actually making.
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC, there is also a max speed above which they don't respond. The reasoning is that this prevents them being used in this way. A more demanding target for you, RF?
|
|
|
|
|
Also, what sort of accidents were included in the study? All reported accidents or just serious accidents involving say personal injuries or fatalities. Surely this must be known if we are to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions about how serious a factor each of the categories is.
Volvolman, I agree -- this seems to me to be the crucial question. My guess is that the vast majority of accidents are the sort of low-speed bumps which happen when parking or in heavy traffic. They can easily cost a few hundred to repair, and tend to be recorded for insurance purposes, but in terms of risk to people rather than to wallets, they aren't too important.
To my mind, the accidents which really matter are those where people are injured or even killed. Speed is much more likely to figure highly as a factor in those cases: witness my local road where limit was reduced from 30 to 40, and cameras installed. We had six deaths and 30 injuries in two years ... and then in the 18 months after the cameras were installed, 6 injuries and no deaths.
I take people's points about the difficulties of driving precisely within the limits ... but that only applies if you are driving at the maximum legal speed. As with anything else, leave a margin for error, and you're OK.
However, technology could help: some manufacturers (Citroen??) already have a gadget which warns you if you exceed a user-set speed, and the same technology which provides cruise control could be used to provide a driver-controlled speed limiter.
If people really wanted to obey the limits, wouldn't they be insisting on having some of these gadgets fitted to new cars as a higher priority than (for example) shiny alloy wheels?
|
>>However, technology could help: some manufacturers(Citroen??)>> already have a gadget which warns you if you exceed a user->> set speed, and the same technology which provides cruise >> control could be used to provide a driver-controlled speed >> limiter.
If people really wanted to obey the limits, wouldn't they be >> insisting on having some of these gadgets fitted to new cars >> as a higher priority than (for example) shiny alloy wheels?
I suspect the majority view is that speed limits are an inconvenience, and because their own driving is of an excellent standard they can make their own judgement as to what speed is safe.
The devices suggested above would seem to me to be an excellent idea, it would make it easier for drivers to adhere to the limit, and avoid accidents, fines and driving bans. To my knowledge there is no such device on the market. Conversly there are a number of devices which warn of speed cameras and radar. So the market is evidently for devices which enable drivers to speed without being detected, rather than to help them drive within the speed limits.
|
Went through a few of the light up signs last weekend and they lit up when I was spot on the limit according to the speedo.Tho mph under according to RoadAngel.
A sign in Derbyshire flashes to warn of a blind summit- however only when you are right alongside it!
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
|
|
|
The devices suggested above would seem to me to be an excellent idea, it would make it easier for drivers to adhere to the limit, and avoid accidents, fines and driving bans. To my knowledge there is no such device on the market. Conversly there are a number of devices which warn of speed cameras and radar. So the market is evidently for devices which enable drivers to speed without being detected, rather than to help them drive within the speed limits.
HJ'd road test of the Citroen C2 includes a description of warning gadget: tinyurl.com/3ee7r
"...on the dash there's a convenient button that allows you to set a speed warning. Exceed the pre-set speed and you get beeped. So no excuses and no need to constantly watch the speed rather than the road when driving through a restricted area"
Since other manufacturers don't seem to be rushing to follow, I guess you are right that drivers prefer gadgets to evade detection :(
|
HJ'd road test of the Citroen C2 includes a description of warning gadget: tinyurl.com/3ee7r "...on the dash there's a convenient button that allows you to set a speed warning. Exceed the pre-set speed and you get beeped. So no excuses and no need to constantly watch the speed rather than the road when driving through a restricted area" Since other manufacturers don't seem to be rushing to follow, I guess you are right that drivers prefer gadgets to evade detection :(
Fiat Stilo has this too (seems to be standard kit on all models). Can be set from anything from 20 mph to 155 mph (!) in 5 mph increments. And you can set the beep volume at levels ranging from "Ahem" to "OI!". Of course, human nature being what it is, the obvious temptation to the ill-behaved is to set it to somewhere in excess of the car's maximum speed, so that it never goes off. Nice idea, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
