Here is an extract of the police accident figures for the first 8 months of 2002.
Total collisions - 1540
Of these
1. Caused by misjudged speed or distance 206 events
2, Caused by wrong course or position 191 events
3. Caused by turning right 125 events
4. Caused by going too fast 116 events
5. Caused by dogs on the road 77 events
6. Caused by overtaking on nearside 62 events
Bearing in that 3 people were killed and 7 injured in 30 minutes last night, in seperate accidents, I don't want to come across in any way flippant in this. However, it is interesting that dogs cause 2/3rds (numerically) of the accidents caused by speeding. It might be interesting to see the stats for prosecution of speeding motorists vis a vis the number of dog owners prosecuted for letting their dogs loose on the roads.
Also nearside overtaking caused 1/2 the accidents caused by speeding - how many prosecution there?
|
If anyone reads this before it gets moved to the speed thread, go to the 'Speeding (mostly excl cameras) IV' thread and read my relocated thread, headed 'REAL war on motorists'
We are about to have some serious problems.
|
|
|
"A dog ran out in front of me," is the guilty drivers version of "Sorry Miss, the dog eat my homework."
If the poor old beasts could understand, there would be some extremely rich canines about. Libel awards can be quite staggering these days.
|
These are official stats.
Are you suggesting the police fell for it?
|
|
Heaven forbid. Perhaps Crufts ought to develop a new breed of dog, to be called the "Plod", in honour of those animal loving hero's who risked life and limb and thrashed the firm's Vectra's in order to save the life of the hoards of straying animals who apparantly roam the streets of Linconshire.
|
|
|
|
Here is an extract of the police accident figures for the first 8 months of 2002.
Total collisions - 1540
I never realised that police drivers were so clumsy :o)
|
Tee, hee, nice one, DD, but there's irony in there, don't you think?
I know these.........tsk,tsk, sorry Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is a big fat 0. Generally not an offence to allow your dog to stray other than on (the few and far between) designated roads - even then doubtful whether it would be pursued.
|
|
Then how would you catch it?
|
I agree with Tom - a few years ago a young moron speeding along a nearby residential road one evening lost control and managed to take out a lamp-post, cross a grass verge, take out a road sign and finally destroy a very substantial garden wall, spinning 180 degrees in the process. The police were called and his excuse was that he was doing 30mph (OH REALLY !!) and swerved to avoid a dog ! Everyone knew what he'd really done but the official statistics blamed a dog.
BTW - Has anyone ever put their hand up and said:-
"yes officer, I'm so sorry, it was all my fault. I was showing off to my girlfriend by driving down this quiet little residential road at 60mph when I totally misjudged the gap between 2 parked cars, hit one of them and lost control resulting in all of this damage." ?
|
I think you stretch the point to incredulity. Sure the case in question may have been blamed on a dog by the driver for the cause of the accident but that's not to say the police would have recorded it as the cause if they were certain no dog was involved.
And, that does not pre suppose a number of cases where a dog did actually cause the accident was confirmed by witnesses.
|
|
I don't think mentioning this incident and asking how many people ever admit to being the cause of an accident is strecthing the point at all ! In this case a neighbour of mine whose front wall was later knocked down by another speeding moron found out that the original incident had been recorded by the police as being due to the 'driver' swerving to avoid a dog.
|
No, I don't think the police are fooled by the "county dog" (also the "county fox...rabbit.....deer...pheasant ") as it is fondly referred to or the ubiquitous "patch of diesel". However, the police accident report is a bureaucratic pro forma which demands that the explanation of the driver be recorded, the correct boxes ticked etc. In the absence of 'witnesses'the driver's explanation has to be given some credibility. Unfortunately, cynical/speculative (but often correct) views are not always accepted.
As a resident of Lincolnshire the fatal/serious injury per capita are appalling. As a driver they are also scary. They roughly equate to a village worth of people every year and a small market town every decade. Most people I talk to seem to know someone that has been killed or seriously injured. While there are a lot of schemes and initiatives to reduce the carnage the total so far for this year, according to the figures on signs erected by the police, are significantly higher than last year. What can be done?
|
|
Why is Lincs so bad? As a Midlands resident these accidents also seem to be on the local TV news far more than Derbys, Notts and Leics - why is it?
|
They get so used to the long straights, they forget there's a bend at the end.
|
|
|
|
