How do I get the mobile speed camera on our road?

[spindrift]

You've made up this 'robust rule' nonsense before regarding bikes. Is it robust because you happen to agree with it?

 

If increased speed increased the likelihood of accidents then motorways would be the most dangerous roads. News flash, they aren't.

 

I've worked with traffic police, non of them were as anti speed as you seem to be. Inappropriate speed is dangerous, breaking the speed limit does not necessarily make the speed inappropriate, nor does being below it make it appropriate.

 

Link to 'the latest research'?

 

To cite motorways as "proving" that speeding is safe is stupidity of the highest order. Interaction with vulnerable road users is factored out of motorway design.

 

There are no shops on motorways. No schools. No hospitals, no horses, no cyclists, no pedestrians.

 

You may as well say Formula 1 racing proves speeding is safe.

 

 

Here's the robust rule:

 

 

 

TRL 421, "The effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents" published in March 2000. This study was designed to discover the speed-crash relationship.

 

The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that

 

the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average traffic speed)

 

the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are

 

Significantly for the ABDs argument, and for the rest of us, they also found that:

 

drivers who choose speeds above the average on some roads tend also to do so on all roads

 

higher speed drivers are associated with a significantly greater crash involvement than are slower drivers

 

 

For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general rule' relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every I mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More specifically, the crash reduction figure is around

 

6% for urban roads with low average speeds

4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads

3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads

 

 

To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?

 

 

Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year.

 

 

http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1.html

[Cyclone]

A much used statistic in Road Safety in that driver error is a factor in 95% of road accidents, whether by failing to notice a hazard, not reacting in time, or simply adopting a dangerous behaviour

 

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/motorvehicles/policy/preventaccidents.htm

 

 

Your turn.

 

Your sources, and show me where I lied.

 

Go back to the cycling thread if you want to bring it up.

 

Contributory factors to road accidents

 

The article describes the scope and limitations of the contributory factors information recently added to the national road accident reporting system, and presents results from the third year of collection, including:

 

• Failed to look properly was the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 35 per cent of all accidents. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 33 per cent of fatal accidents.
  
• Younger and older drivers are more likely to have a contributory factor recorded than drivers aged 25-69. Younger drivers, particularly males, are more likely to have factors related to speed and behaviour, whereas older drivers are more likely to have factors related to vision and judgement.

Just of general interest I thought, with speed not being mentioned in the list of highest contributory factors.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071

 

Now, I'm pretty sure that I said 'I've seen before a figure of', I can't find it quickly now, I've looked on the DoT website and can't find any figure.

I phrased it the way I did to make it clear that it was a figure from memory and I didn't have a reference to hand.

Feel free to look up the latest figure and either prove me right or wrong.

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/contributoryfactorstoroadacc1802

 

You could start here, I suspect that it contains the answer.

 

I think that page 12 might be the source of the claim.

 

53% of accidents involving fatalities to pedestrians have 'failed to look' as a contributory factor on behalf of the pedestrian, another 24% have 'in a hurry' as a contributory factor.

Together that's... 77%, pretty close to the 80% I remember.

It isn't cut and dry as there can be multiple contributory factors and they can come from both parties, but a newspaper may well have reported that as 80% of pedestrian fatalities are the pedestrians fault.

[Cyclone]

It should also be recognised that excessive speed can contribute significantly to the severity of the accident. Table 6 shows that either exceeding speed limit or going too fast for conditions are more likely to be a factor in fatal accidents. Table 7 shows that 12 per cent of cars which hit and killed a pedestrian had either exceeding speed limit or going too fast for conditions as a contributory factor.

 

Particularly interesting. That means that 88% of cars that hit and killed pedestrians weren't going too fast (and that doesn't just mean not breaking the limit). So maybe a focus on speed as the be all and end all of road safety is a little.... blinkered?

[Cyclone]

I've got a new robust rule

 

Arguing with spindrift is fruitless, his reality warping field is too strong to penetrate, you cannot defeat a robust rule once stated as it means that he has faith in it, reason cannot defeat faith.

 

How's that?

[spindrift]

"Go back to the cycling thread if you want to bring it up."

 

No dice, you don't call people liars and then refuse to back it up.

 

 

And a sizeable proportion of pedestrian accidents involved vehicles colliding with them on the pavement or on a zebra crossing. It's difficult to see how even cyclone could find the pedestrian at fault in those circumstances.... Still, he thinks motorways 'prove' that speeding is safe so I guess he could be thick enough.

[spindrift]

Particularly interesting. That means that 88% of cars that hit and killed pedestrians weren't going too fast (and that doesn't just mean not breaking the limit). So maybe a focus on speed as the be all and end all of road safety is a little.... blinkered?

 

 

Blinkered, yes.

 

And a fallacy, since speed isn't the only factor targetted by the government and road safety groups, that's another factoid you've plucked out of thin air.

[spindrift]

I've got a new robust rule

 

Arguing with spindrift is fruitless, his reality warping field is too strong to penetrate, you cannot defeat a robust rule once stated as it means that he has faith in it, reason cannot defeat faith.

 

How's that?

 

You have an opinion you back up with things you claim you remembered reading in a newspaper and implausible first-hand anecdotes that lead you to describe London's cyclists, based on a sample of 2 per cent, as 'nearly all insane'.

 

 

I have an opinion I can back up with published, -peer-reviewed evidence, road safety stats and university published reports and data.

[Cyclone]

Vehicles involved. In single vehicle accidents, most pedestrians are hit by cars (see table). This reflects the fact that cars form the majority of traffic. However, when allowing for distance travelled (chart) motorcycles and buses pose greater risk to pedestrians, particularly in urban areas.

Another fascinating little fact. Cars 'by mile driven' are the least likely to hit a pedestrian.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/suppletablesfactsheets/pedestrianfactsheet07.pdf

This report is full of interesting info.

 

In 55 per cent of accidents contributory factors were only assigned to pedestrians (with pedestrian failed to look properly being the most common individual factor).

•

In 21 per cent of accidents factors were only associated with vehicles involved (with failed to look properly being the most common vehicle factor, as in all accidents).

•

In the remaining 24 per cent of accidents at least one factor was assigned to both a pedestrian casualty and a vehicle (with the most common combination being both participants failing to look properly, recorded in around 7 per cent of all pedestrian accidents)

And this one answers the earlier question.

 

55% are pedestrian only fault.

21% are vehicle only fault.

The remainder (24%) are faults from both.

 

I guess the 80% was again a newspaper that added 55 and 24 together to get 79% being accidents where the pedestrian was at least partially at fault!

[Cyclone]

"Go back to the cycling thread if you want to bring it up."

 

No dice, you don't call people liars and then refuse to back it up.

 

 

And a sizeable proportion of pedestrian accidents involved vehicles colliding with them on the pavement or on a zebra crossing. It's difficult to see how even cyclone could find the pedestrian at fault in those circumstances.... Still, he thinks motorways 'prove' that speeding is safe so I guess he could be thick enough.

 

You're easily confused, so I guess I can see why you'd be mixing up the issues of speed and pedestrians.

 

You made a simple statement that speed increases the risk of accident, I countered it with an obvious example where it doesn't. You've mixed that up somehow with pedestrians being hit, which obviously happens mostly in built up areas.

 

We've now seen that speed is a contributory factor in very few pedestrian accidents.

 

I guess you've not finished reading that report yet and haven't seen this yet

 

Vehicles in accidents with a pedestrian casualty were 4 times more likely to have been recorded as being on the footway than vehicles involved in other accidents - but still only account for 3 per cent of vehicles involved in pedestrian accidents.

 

and

 

Pedestrian location. In total, more than half (57 per cent) of pedestrian casualties were crossing the road (not masked by a stationary vehicle) when injured. Of these, 18 per cent were on a pedestrian crossing

 

So that gives us a total of 3 + 10.3, call it 13%.

 

I guess that means that nearly 90% weren't hit on a zebra crossing or on the pavement.

You really should read the report before you carry on, and in case you get lonely, I'll explain now that I'm going for a run, then I'm going to get some dinner.

[Cyclone]

 

 

I have an opinion I can back up with published, -peer-reviewed evidence, road safety stats and university published reports and data.

 

Your data is looking a little bit like you've made it up as you went along right now...

 

Anyway, have to run.