Like We Didn't Already Know That!

**vifferman** · 12th June 2004, 10:11

From The Harold this morning (Sat. 12/06/2004):
"Exceeding the speed limit is not the main cause of car crashes, say researchers in Britain's transport department. Instead, carelessness, inattention and misjudgement are mostlt to blame. Data from 13 police divisions blamed inattention (25.8%), failure to judge the other person's path or speed (22.6%), looked but did not see (19.7%), careless / thoughtless/ reckless behaviour (18.4%), failed to look (16.3%), lack of judgement of own path (13.7%), and excessive speed (12.5%). The department said excessive speed means both "above the speed limit" and "inappropriate to the conditions". It found that 70 per cent of excessive speed accidents happened within the speed limit, falling into the category of going too fast for the conditions. In many serious crashes where excessive speed is noted, the causes of both the excessive speed and the crash are frequently drink, drugs, or joyriding in stolen cars."

In D'Auckland, I'd put "careless / thoughtless/ reckless behaviour" at 100%.

**MacD** · 12th June 2004, 10:34

Originally Posted by firestormer

From The Harold this morning (Sat. 12/06/2004):
"Exceeding the speed limit is not the main cause of car crashes, say researchers in Britain's transport department.

Ah yes, but the LTSA already know this. The definition of "speeding" that they use is not what most people would expect "speeding" to mean - that is - exceeding the speed limit.
Instead (from the LTSA )

Travelling too fast for the conditions ("speeding") puts you and your passengers at risk. It also puts other road users, who need to react to you, in danger.

Key facts for 2002
Speeding was a major contributing factor to road crashes.
Speeding contributed to 110 fatal crashes, 386 serious injury crashes and 1052 minor injury crashes.
Speeding contributed to 128 deaths, 535 serious injuries and 1678 minor injuries.

So in all of the statistics quoted above, every instance could relate to a case where the speed limit was not being exceeded. Now I know this is extremely unlikely and an exaggeration to make a point, but the LTSA uses these statistics to support their "exceeding the speed limit makes you a murderer" campaigns.

The use of statistics by the LTSA would make an advertising agency blush!

PS: Yes, I accept all of the arguments about trauma and speeding etc, and I'm quite happy to have a speed limit, but I do object to the misuse of statistics to support the current abusive LTSA campaign.

**MacD** · 12th June 2004, 10:37

I'm also pissed off because its a nice sunny day here and I'm stuck inside all weekend!

**FROSTY:Me** · 12th June 2004, 11:05

well fuck me --like duuuu ---sorry can think of a more intellectual response, Like we have been telling them this for years.

**spudchucka** · 13th June 2004, 11:07

Originally Posted by MacD

Ah yes, but the LTSA already know this. The definition of "speeding" that they use is not what most people would expect "speeding" to mean - that is - exceeding the speed limit.
Instead (from the LTSA )

So in all of the statistics quoted above, every instance could relate to a case where the speed limit was not being exceeded. Now I know this is extremely unlikely and an exaggeration to make a point, but the LTSA uses these statistics to support their "exceeding the speed limit makes you a murderer" campaigns.

The use of statistics by the LTSA would make an advertising agency blush!

PS: Yes, I accept all of the arguments about trauma and speeding etc, and I'm quite happy to have a speed limit, but I do object to the misuse of statistics to support the current abusive LTSA campaign.

I agree with your comments on the use of stats by LTSA but show me anywhere in society that stats aren't used in that same manner. All organisations that quote stats do so to promote their own particular point of view and in so doing the stats are misleading.

**Indiana_Jones** · 13th June 2004, 12:15

It's not the speed that kills you, it's the short stop

-Indy

**Slim** · 13th June 2004, 14:56

Originally Posted by Indiana_Jones

It's not the speed that kills you, it's the short stop

Otherwise known as deceleration trauma.

**Milky** · 13th June 2004, 21:56

Originally Posted by firestormer

From The Harold this morning (Sat. 12/06/2004):
"Exceeding the speed limit is not the main cause of car crashes, say researchers in Britain's transport department. Instead, carelessness, inattention and misjudgement are mostlt to blame. Data from 13 police divisions blamed inattention (25.8%), failure to judge the other person's path or speed (22.6%), looked but did not see (19.7%), careless / thoughtless/ reckless behaviour (18.4%), failed to look (16.3%), lack of judgement of own path (13.7%), and excessive speed (12.5%). The department said excessive speed means both "above the speed limit" and "inappropriate to the conditions". It found that 70 per cent of excessive speed accidents happened within the speed limit, falling into the category of going too fast for the conditions. In many serious crashes where excessive speed is noted, the causes of both the excessive speed and the crash are frequently drink, drugs, or joyriding in stolen cars."

In D'Auckland, I'd put "careless / thoughtless/ reckless behaviour" at 100%.

Have you noticed, if you do the maths, that the proportion of accidents where exceeding the speedlimit was DIRECTLY seen to be the cause of the accident comes out to be 3.75%

(12.5% excessive speed * 30% exceeding the limit). this may not be exactly the same here in 'lil ol' NZ, but how much different can it be?? Yet, still the message is pushed. Surely the benefit from driver education/ promoting driving when sane would be greater than that of getting people to keep religiously below 100. Sure, yes police it, but don't spend such an obscene amount of money on it in the name of reducing the road toll. :sneaky2: I know it has all been said before, but it seems, unfortunately, that speed is the easiest/ most cost effective/ quantifiable way of doing something about the road toll, and the only way which will be pursued in the future. I live in hope for the day in which a realist is placed in charge of this area of policy....

Does anyone know of similar figures for NZ? It would be an interesting exercise to see how they compare.

**Bandito** · 13th June 2004, 22:13

Legislating against speed is easy but when they find a way to legislate against stupidity we'll all be safer!!!

**vifferman** · 14th June 2004, 11:13

Originally Posted by Bandito

Legislating against speed is easy but when they find a way to legislate against stupidity we'll all be safer!!!

Well, you can, if indirectly. It all comes down to ensuring that people don't go on the road unless they're fit to (as evidenced by passing a series of comprehensive tests), and don't stay on the road if they show they're unfit to, as evidenced by the way they drive.

Firstly, make the driving test much more stringent, and retest drivers every 10 years or whatever.
Secondly, educate the driving populace about driving practices that are stupid, careless, thoughtless or dangerous. They could use the money they gather from speeding tickets and road tax for this.
Thirdly, spend more money on enforcement of the rules, and on overhauling stupid ones such as the "Give way when turning left" (not used anywhere else in the world), overtaking on the left on motorways, and frustratingly slow speed limits on good stretches of road (motorways, for example).
Lastly, for those who break the rules, re-educate and punish them so they learn from their mistakes. Those that don't seem to be able to manage this should lose their right to share the road with those who do drive properly.

**Deano** · 14th June 2004, 11:39

How about somebody forwarding the UK stats to Andy Knackerhead at LTSA for comment - no doubt a bs reply will be received but....?

**scumdog** · 14th June 2004, 13:07

Originally Posted by Bandito

Legislating against speed is easy but when they find a way to legislate against stupidity we'll all be safer!!!

I keep mentioning it on this site, "they" are developing a "stupidometer" to detect driver/riders with no evidence of brain activity- the hold-up is Parliament who are petrified the device will meltdown when ponted at the Beehive

**svs** · 14th June 2004, 13:25

see safespeed.org.uk. this website takes apart all the LTSA statistical arguments.

See the 'one third lie'

**dhunt** · 14th June 2004, 14:24

Originally Posted by firestormer

Firstly, make the driving test much more stringent, and retest drivers every 10 years or whatever.
Secondly, educate the driving populace about driving practices that are stupid, careless, thoughtless or dangerous. They could use the money they gather from speeding tickets and road tax for this.

I agree with you but the only problem with more testing etc is we pay for it all. The liceases cost enough how they are. Maybe make it manitory to do drivers ed at school or something. I'm sure other countries have done this.

David

**vifferman** · 14th June 2004, 14:28

Originally Posted by dhunt

I agree with you but the only problem with more testing etc is we pay for it all. The liceases cost enough how they are. Maybe make it manitory to do drivers ed at school or something. I'm sure other countries have done this.

David

Isn't that a small price to pay to get all the dickheads off the road?