Foundation stone of "Speed Kills" Abandoned by DfT
03 September 2004, 11:19 PM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Foundation stone of "Speed Kills" Abandoned by DfT
Foundation stone of "Speed Kills" Abandoned by DfT
ABD calls for safety policy rethink.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has recently abandoned one of the key foundations of the "Kill Your Speed" policy - the assertion that speeding causes a third of accidents. The ABD believes that this should herald a return to a much more positive and effective road safety policy, which will save many lives.
"Getting rid of the notorious one third fallacy is the best thing that's happened to road safety in years," said ABD Road Safety spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie. "All the research on the causes of crashes shows that the one third fallacy blames speeding for ten times as many accidents as it actually causes. This fundamental error has led to safe behaviour being criminalised whilst dangerous driving and badly designed roads are allowed to persist."
In a recent letter to a member of the public, a DfT official produced the following carefully worded, face saving climbdown:
"The Department has, in the past suggested that around one third of accidents are speed related. This is not a figure it continues to use. But not because the Department no longer believes in its accuracy. Just as speed is a complex issue, so is the recording of contributory factors."
The words may be carefully chosen but the message is clear - the evidence from real accidents don't support the "one third" fallacy, and the DfT have been forced to abandon it.
The whole foundation of the speed reduction policies of the last dozen years has been based on the statement that speeding causes a third of road deaths.
Now, the DfT has finally admitted that it can't back it up from real evidence - which suggests that 3% is nearer the mark than 33%.
This means that most of the speed limit reductions, traffic calming and speed camera enforcement introduced to target this one third of accidents have been misguided.
When the authorities should have been spending 5% of their effort targeting a small number of reckless drivers travelling excessively fast in dangerous circumstances, they have instead been led by the one third fallacy to criminalise normal progress and to prosecute safe and reasonable behaviour.
They have also neglected the causes of 95% of accidents, related to poor road design, inattention and misjudgement. Many of these causes have actually been made worse by the obsession with speed, as drivers have become distracted from the business of driving and cynical about all road safety campaigns.
"Now the one third fallacy is fading from sight, we need to get back to measures which help drivers to control their speed properly in response to the conditions rather than penalise them for driving safely," said ABD Chairman Brian Gregory.
ABD calls for safety policy rethink.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has recently abandoned one of the key foundations of the "Kill Your Speed" policy - the assertion that speeding causes a third of accidents. The ABD believes that this should herald a return to a much more positive and effective road safety policy, which will save many lives.
"Getting rid of the notorious one third fallacy is the best thing that's happened to road safety in years," said ABD Road Safety spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie. "All the research on the causes of crashes shows that the one third fallacy blames speeding for ten times as many accidents as it actually causes. This fundamental error has led to safe behaviour being criminalised whilst dangerous driving and badly designed roads are allowed to persist."
In a recent letter to a member of the public, a DfT official produced the following carefully worded, face saving climbdown:
"The Department has, in the past suggested that around one third of accidents are speed related. This is not a figure it continues to use. But not because the Department no longer believes in its accuracy. Just as speed is a complex issue, so is the recording of contributory factors."
The words may be carefully chosen but the message is clear - the evidence from real accidents don't support the "one third" fallacy, and the DfT have been forced to abandon it.
The whole foundation of the speed reduction policies of the last dozen years has been based on the statement that speeding causes a third of road deaths.
Now, the DfT has finally admitted that it can't back it up from real evidence - which suggests that 3% is nearer the mark than 33%.
This means that most of the speed limit reductions, traffic calming and speed camera enforcement introduced to target this one third of accidents have been misguided.
When the authorities should have been spending 5% of their effort targeting a small number of reckless drivers travelling excessively fast in dangerous circumstances, they have instead been led by the one third fallacy to criminalise normal progress and to prosecute safe and reasonable behaviour.
They have also neglected the causes of 95% of accidents, related to poor road design, inattention and misjudgement. Many of these causes have actually been made worse by the obsession with speed, as drivers have become distracted from the business of driving and cynical about all road safety campaigns.
"Now the one third fallacy is fading from sight, we need to get back to measures which help drivers to control their speed properly in response to the conditions rather than penalise them for driving safely," said ABD Chairman Brian Gregory.
04 September 2004, 10:10 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
So *maybe* we'll get back to an 'education' basis to improve road safety, along with engineering out real accident blackspots. But then they won't make money so I can't see Gordon Brown jumping up and down to get rid of cameras ............
Dave
Dave
04 September 2004, 10:24 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are other faint glimmers of hope too; the last road safety TV ad I saw featured a motorcyclist being knocked down by someone failing to check their blind spot before turning right - no mention of speed there at all.
The 'one third' figure was normally stated along the lines of, 'speed is a contributory factor in up to one third of accidents', which is (as is now beginning to emerge), pure spin. Imagine if exactly the same information had been stated as 'speed is not even a contributory factor in two thirds of accidents' (or even more simply as, 'speed is not even a contributory factor in the majority of accidents') - maybe public opinion would be different. But, of course, speed is the one aspect of driving that's easy to measure quantitatively, and therefore the easiest on which to base prosecutions.
The 'one third' figure was normally stated along the lines of, 'speed is a contributory factor in up to one third of accidents', which is (as is now beginning to emerge), pure spin. Imagine if exactly the same information had been stated as 'speed is not even a contributory factor in two thirds of accidents' (or even more simply as, 'speed is not even a contributory factor in the majority of accidents') - maybe public opinion would be different. But, of course, speed is the one aspect of driving that's easy to measure quantitatively, and therefore the easiest on which to base prosecutions.
04 September 2004, 11:57 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
There are other faint glimmers of hope too; the last road safety TV ad I saw featured a motorcyclist being knocked down by someone failing to check their blind spot before turning right - no mention of speed there at all.
but they should have pointed out the bike was a fool for overtaking at that point, not really the cars fault.
T
04 September 2004, 12:19 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tiggs
but they should have pointed out the bike was a fool for overtaking at that point, not really the cars fault.
T
T
04 September 2004, 12:26 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, advanced driver training doesn't just involve not causing accidents yourself, it also involves coping with the possible mistakes of others. Just because other people do stupid things doesn't mean there's nothing you can do to reduce the possibility of an accident occurring.
In this case, surely the lesson for the bike is, 'don't overtake someone who's turning right', and for the car it's 'don't turn right without checking to see if some idiot is trying to overtake you'. Either vehicle could independently have prevented the accident from occurring, and assigning blame after the fact is a pointless exercise.
In this case, surely the lesson for the bike is, 'don't overtake someone who's turning right', and for the car it's 'don't turn right without checking to see if some idiot is trying to overtake you'. Either vehicle could independently have prevented the accident from occurring, and assigning blame after the fact is a pointless exercise.
04 September 2004, 12:56 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Co Durham
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
Guys, advanced driver training doesn't just involve not causing accidents yourself, it also involves coping with the possible mistakes of others. Just because other people do stupid things doesn't mean there's nothing you can do to reduce the possibility of an accident occurring.
In this case, surely the lesson for the bike is, 'don't overtake someone who's turning right', and for the car it's 'don't turn right without checking to see if some idiot is trying to overtake you'. Either vehicle could independently have prevented the accident from occurring, and assigning blame after the fact is a pointless exercise.
In this case, surely the lesson for the bike is, 'don't overtake someone who's turning right', and for the car it's 'don't turn right without checking to see if some idiot is trying to overtake you'. Either vehicle could independently have prevented the accident from occurring, and assigning blame after the fact is a pointless exercise.
Trending Topics
04 September 2004, 01:00 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
There are other faint glimmers of hope too; the last road safety TV ad I saw featured a motorcyclist being knocked down by someone failing to check their blind spot before turning right - no mention of speed there at all.
04 September 2004, 03:59 PM
#9
Originally Posted by Tiggs
but they should have pointed out the bike was a fool for overtaking at that point, not really the cars fault.
T
T
and also, if that bloke in the cavalier hadn't removed the ABS fuse or pumped his brakes just once that kiddy would have been fine.
where as the drink driving one in the pub is superb
04 September 2004, 04:13 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
There are other faint glimmers of hope too; the last road safety TV ad I saw featured a motorcyclist being knocked down by someone failing to check their blind spot before turning right - no mention of speed there at all.
Looked like the bike was in the cars blind spot too, if i'm riding alongside/behind a car i like to be able to see the car drivers face in the wing mirror. Plus if you can see his hands on the steering wheel it gives you a bit more warning if he starts to pull a stupid manouvre.
Cr@p advert IMHO.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM