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

[spindrift]

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

 

Anyway, have to run.

 

If you have evidence the Liverpool University study was corrupt I'd like to see your evidence please.

[spindrift]

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

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Um, no, YOU introduced the argument about motorways in discussing the role of speed in accidents.

 

There aren't any pedestrians on motorways, so your analogy is flawed.

 

Can you try to be less unpleasant please?

 

Argue with what I say, stop adding spiteful ad hominems.

 

Found where I lied yet?

[spindrift]

Here's the pedestrian/b;ame stats:

 

Where the precipitating factor was loss of control of vehicle (19 per cent of allaccidents but 43 per cent of fatal accidents) the main factor is excessive speed which was identified in over a third of all these accidents and in 42 per cent of fatal or serious accidents.

 

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/contributoryfactorstoroadacc.pdf.

 

In fact I can't find a single source that says pedestrians are usually to blame in RTAs.

 

On Britain's roads, more than 23,000 casualties each year are caused from pedestrian accidents and, usually, the driver of the motor vehicle is to blame.

 

http://www.clclaims.co.uk/accident-claims/pedestrian-accident.phpAnd my primary source again:

 

The DTLR has stated that "speed is a major contributory factor in around one third of all road traffic accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps to kill 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more".[13] There are other important factors: ie use of mobiles, drinking and driving, lack of sleep.

 

 

11. There was general agreement about why speed is such a danger. First, "at higher speeds there is less time to make adjustments for error, therefore a crash is more likely".[14] Professor Stradling of Napier University expressed the situation in the formula:

 

Violation + Speed = Crash.[15]

 

Detailed research by Gloucestershire County Council shows the relationship between speed and crashes.[16] In its survey, the reporting officer at a crash was required to indicate what went wrong (the 'precipitating factor') when there was an injury accident.

 

 

 

In 97% of cases human error was to blame; in the others it was directly attributable to mechanical failure. When asked to identify other factors which had caused or contributed to the crash, officers attributed excess speed as a causation factor in 14% of crashes and inappropriate speed (such as loss of control) in a further 32%.

 

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/55705.htm

 

The above link makes an important point often ignored by the speedophiles:

 

THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A FATALITY FOR SPEEDING TO BE ANTI-SOCIAL:

 

Speeding also indirectly affects health. Physical inactivity is a major public health problem in the UK. Health professionals, supported by a number of other witnesses, stressed that by discouraging walking and cycling speeding traffic led to inactivity, and hence the increased risk of illnesses such as coronary heart disease, colon cancer and diabetes. The Health Development Agency noted that:

 

 

"around 60% of men and 70% of women [fail] to reach the minimum recommendation of 30 minutes moderate activity at least five times a week...It is estimated that the population attributable risk of coronary heart disease from inactivity is 37%."[54]

 

 

The prospect of an unpleasant walk to the shops down a busy road with traffic travelling in excess of 30 mph makes most of us get into our car; a walk of the same distance in a pleasant and peaceful environment is an attractive proposition. The BMA pointed out that the:

 

 

"issue of children's exercise is crucial not only because of its link with their health and fitness in later life, but also because habits such as taking part in and enjoying physical activity are most easily acquired in childhood and may be difficult to acquire later".[55]

 

 

29. The threat posed by traffic has had a major effect on childhood. The relationship between traffic, air quality and health, including asthma, are well known. In addition, as the Traffic and Children Coalition stated:

 

"A major deterioration in children's quality of life has been the increasing loss of their independent mobility with many harmful consequences on their development, as highlighted in Mayer Hillman's classic 'One False Move' study".[56]

 

 

The memorandum quoted Mr Hillman:

 

 

"There appear to be alternative responses: either we can continue to with draw children from the growing threat that is posed, and inculcate fear in parents and children about the risks, or we can withdraw that threat from the children by 'taming' traffic."

 

 

30. There are serious indirect health effects of inappropriate traffic speed. Fast-moving traffic plays a part in discouraging physical activity by inhibiting walking and cycling in urban and rural areas. We recommend an increase in the number of dedicated cycle routes. Moreover, vehicles travelling at speed are noisy, sever communities and undermine urban regeneration.

[Cyclone]

If you have evidence the Liverpool University study was corrupt I'd like to see your evidence please.

 

Your figure about pedestrians on crossings was from that study was it.

 

I can't check since you haven't provided a link. It's not evidence until everyone else can take a look.

 

Regarding you 'not finding a single source'. I already gave you a link to the DoT website and the specific report. If you can't be bothered to read, or want to deny the evidence that is there, that's not my problem.

 

Your 'primary source' there is an ambulance chasing law firm. 'Had an accident that wasn't your fault', no actually you stepped into the road without looking.

 

Given the choice between the Department of Transport and a random solicitors website making unverified claims to drum up business, I'd go with the DoT.

 

I introduced motorways yes. Because you made the unqualified statement that increased speed increases the risk of an accident. It's clearly not true.

Inappropriate speed increases the risk of an accident, which may or may not be above the speed limit and could mean doing 20mph on the motorway in heavy snow.

The simplistic argument that faster is more dangerous is just that, simplistic and unhelpful.

 

For the record (in case you call me a speedophile for arguing with you). The 30 mph limit is appropriate when there are pedestrians around and I don't break it.

It can be applied inappropriately (see Penistone Road near to Wickes). Other limits are more often inappropriate IMO, the 50 limit on the snake is silly, 60 limits can often be broken with no additional risk and nearly everyone on the motorway (when conditions allow) breaks the 70 limit.

[spindrift]

"I can't check since you haven't provided a link. "

 

Please don't blunder into a thread you haven't read properly:

 

 

 

Yesterday, 19:01 #134

spindrift

Registered User

 

 

Join Date: May 2006

Total Posts: 226

Status: Online Liverpool University research:

 

Speed cameras:

 

'They reduce accidents as well as raising revenue'.

 

Dr Linda Mountain addresses the question of whether speed cameras are life savers or just revenue raisers

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/au...linda.mountain

 

 

 

Speed cameras do reduce accidents, say researchers

Liverpool, UK - 9 September 2008: Scientists at the University of Liverpool have developed an accident prediction model which proves that speed cameras are effective in reducing the number of road traffic accidents by 20 per cent.

 

 

http://liverpool.ac.uk/news/press_re...%20cameras.htm

 

"I introduced motorways yes. Because you made the unqualified statement that increased speed increases the risk of an accident. It's clearly not true."

 

Because motorways are a road where interaction with vulnerable road users is factored out. To claim that TRL is flawed because it didn't include motorways is specious. Read it again:

 

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

 

It would save a lot of time and re-posts of the same material twice if you took a bit more care reading the thread.

 

On the culpability of pedestrians,

 

 

In 2003 3,453 pedestrians were injured by drivers whose cars mounted the pavement. It is difficult to see how the pedestrian could possibly be at fault in those instances, and these incidents are not even recorded on your graph!

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... column_254

 

533 pedestrians were killed or seriously injured on zebra crossings:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 044335.stm

 

Again it's difficult to follow your argument that three quarters of these were the pedestrian's fault!

 

The legal profession disagree with you:

 

In 2005 more than 33,000 pedestrians were injured in road traffic accidents, most of them through no fault of their own. Drivers must drive carefully and thoughtfully and maintain a proper lookout for potential hazards and danger to themselves and others on the road. "I didn't see you" is not a valid excuse.

 

http://www.accidentcompensation4u.com/p ... tion-claim

 

ROSPA disagree with you, see above.

 

 

You have one, selected graph that offers partial information on blame- a factor not ordinarily recorded by DFT.

 

You've taken an incomplete graph and built a towering house of cards upon it, that's why you are unable to find a single source that backs up what you are saying.

 

For instance:

 

Most fatal road accidents due to driver error

 

[Posted: Wed 26/11/2003]

 

By Deborah Condon

 

Driver error was responsible for 86% of all fatal road accidents in Ireland last year, new figures from the National Roads Authority (NRA) have shown.

 

According to the authority, the biggest cause of fatal accidents was due to the driver veering onto the wrong side of the road (39%), while a further 20% of accidents were due to the driver exceeding the speed limit.

 

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=5419

 

Now, you have a report that says pedestrians are at fault in 74% of pedestrian injuries. I've explained that the report doesn't even allow for other factors.

 

Is your contention honestly that you are right and all other reports are wrong?

 

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/ ... idents.htm

 

You are right and ROSPA are wrong?

 

We know from police investigations in to accidents that some are caused by defective vehicles, in particular, tyres, lights and brakes, however the majority of accidents are caused by driver error and in particular young males between the age of 17 and 25.

 

http://www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk/ ... 5113530.jp

 

Can you find one, single, solitary source that backs up your view without relying on the partial data you place all your argument on?

 

What do driving agencies say?

 

90% of all accidents are the result of driver error. They don�t happen by chance; they are the consequences of unsafe driving practices.

 

http://www.allmotortraining.co.uk/Fleetdrivers.htm

 

Again, a wide discrepency between what you claim and what accredited driving instructors state.

 

Here's a sourced quote:

 

Roger Vincent of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said: "Obviously with all these accidents happening on the A23, including the two fatal ones at virtually the same spot at Braypool, experts with local knowledge need to have a look at the road.

 

"Ninety-five per cent of road accidents are caused by driver error and it is vital that motorists drive more carefully and safely when they drive down to Brighton and take more time for their journeys."

 

http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2005/5/30/102243.html

 

What qualifications do you have in statistical analyses that would lend weight to your belief that you know better than Mr Vincent, a professional safety adviser please?

Nationwide data, from the insurance industry:

 

Failure by drivers to look properly is the single biggest contributory factor when it comes to road accidents in the UK, a new Government report revealed this week.

 

In the first report of its kind, the Department for Transport (DfT) also highlighted how "some kind of driver or rider error or reaction" resulted in five out of six accidents. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35% of road deaths.

 

Covering most accidents that took place in 2005, the report said that exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor in only 5% of accidents, and going too fast for the conditions was a contributory factor in 10% of accidents.

 

However, speed was a factor in 26% of all fatal accidents.

 

http://www.nurs.co.uk/news/2006/09/29/b ... dentified/

 

Your claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny cyclone.

 

It is replicated nowhere.

 

It is refuted by the insurance industry, the police, driving training agencies, the government, and ROSPA.

 

Find a single, accredited source that backs up your claim and you'll be rather more convincing.

 

 

Surely now you can see what I mean?

 

You've lifted a partial report that has given you a misleading set of data.

 

For instance, look at the entry for 'failed to look'. Now, if a pedestrian sees the road is clear, uses a zebra crossing and is mown down by a drunk, speeding driver who comes around the corner at 80mph then your graph records the blame as being apportioned to the pedestrian!

 

You are selectively extracting data to blame a sub set of road users and it's pretty distasteful.

 

Calling a ped who steps out in front of a car that should be stopping for them and then gets hit "at fault" is bizzare in the extreme.

 

It's a bit like saying somebody who get's punched in the face was "at fault" for not ducking, technically true, but insidious and morally repugnant to suggest.

 

Especially when it gives ammo to people who think they should get brownie points for whacking peds who are in the road; it's dangerous propoganda.

[spindrift]

Now, as simply as I can make it, those questions you refused to answer:

 

1/

 

You keep saying I am a liar. When and where did I lie please?

 

2/

 

You claim based on a sample of less than 2 per cent that 'nearly all' cyclists in London are insane. Do you stand by this, even after being informed that the explosion of cycling in London has led to FEWER accidents?

[tis me]

spindrift ive come to the conclusion you talk out of your rear about something you obviously know first hand little about but cutting and pasting crap that you would like to back up your seemingly blinkered veiw that speed is the be all and end all of road safety.

Are you trying to have us belive that if we all went 10 mph slower then there would be no accidents? what a crock of crap,sleep related accidents have already taken a sharpe rise due lowered speed limits.

You seem as many do to assosiate being over the speed limit with dangerous driving,that could only come from someone with very limited driving skills and i bet you either dont drive or are infact very limited and as many crap drivers do,tar others with their own limited ability.

The goverments own figures suggest only 6% of accidents are caused by speed so why dont you bleat on about things that would really make a difference and not just cash?

[spindrift]

No doubt you'll ignore those questions, as you've ignored them before, but my point is your world view is skewed cyclone.

 

You underplay the role of speed in accidents (1200 deaths every year) and claim cyclists are nearly all mad (on average half a death per year, in all circumstances, including unwary peds).

 

Does that strike you as a balanced viewpoint?

[spindrift]

spindrift ive come to the conclusion you talk out of your rear about something you obviously know first hand little about but cutting and pasting crap that you would like to back up your seemingly blinkered veiw that speed is the be all and end all of road safety.

Are you trying to have us belive that if we all went 10 mph slower then there would be no accidents? what a crock of crap,sleep related accidents have already taken a sharpe rise due lowered speed limits.

You seem as many do to assosiate being over the speed limit with dangerous driving,that could only come from someone with very limited driving skills and i bet you either dont drive or are infact very limited and as many crap drivers do,tar others with their own limited ability.

The goverments own figures suggest only 6% of accidents are caused by speed so why dont you bleat on about things that would really make a difference and not just cash?

 

1/

 

Start of with an insult, well done, your very first contribution.

 

2/

 

Introduce a straw man with your second point and claim I said a 10 mph reduction would prevent all accidents, something neither I nor anyone else has said, ever. Try arguinmg with what I've said, not your hysterical inventions.

 

3/

 

Introduce a random made-up fact about sleep-related accidents, as if speed limits induce narcolepsy among drivers. Your source, please?

 

4/

 

Speed is not the 'be all and end all'. I've already covered this, please don't barge into a thread you haven't bothered to read properly.

 

5/

 

The risk of collision and the chance of serious injury rises at speed. Think about it, the human body is designed to withstand a fall at the fastest speed a human can travel. Introduce a ton of steel and excessive speeds, either above or below the limit according to Stats 19, and you can see where the danger lies.

 

6/

 

Introduce a garbled statistic that we've already covered in depth. Sp[eed is a factor in 26% of road deaths, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the link. The 6% figure you claim, no doubt copied from some pro-speeding campaign group, is a crock, see upthread.

 

 

 

7/

 

Finish off with another insult and claim I don't drive. Well done!

[tis me]

1/

 

Start of with an insult, well done, your very first contribution.

 

2/

 

Introduce a straw man with your second point and claim I said a 10 mph reduction would prevent all accidents, something neither I nor anyone else has said, ever. Try arguinmg with what I've said, not your hysterical inventions.

 

3/

 

Introduce a random made-up fact about sleep-related accidents, as if speed limits induce narcolepsy among drivers. Your source, please?

4/

 

Speed is not the 'be all and end all'. I've already covered this, please don't barge into a thread you haven't bothered to read properly.

 

5/

 

The risk of collision and the chance of serious injury rises at speed. Think about it, the human body is designed to withstand a fall at the fastest speed a human can travel. Introduce a ton of steel and excessive speeds, either above or below the limit according to Stats 19, and you can see where the danger lies.

 

6/

 

Introduce a garbled statistic that we've already covered in depth. Sp[eed is a factor in 26% of road deaths, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the link. The 6% figure you claim, no doubt copied from some pro-speeding campaign group, is a crock, see upthread.

 

 

 

7/

 

Finish off with another insult and claim I don't drive. Well done!

 

Yes exactly the bit in bold suggests you bring nothing whatsoever to this thread first hand but cut and pasted info you managed to find.Not a single word you spout points to you knowing what your talking about only what others have written.

My moneys is still on dont drive or just crap at it.

 

Oh and i think you should read the previous pages before you spout about it being my first contribution,not that i need you to allow me or tell me when and where i can post,i will when and where i choose to if that is ok with sir cut and paste .