Another angle on speeding related accidents
linfordlunchbox
Posts: 4,834
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Comment: If speeding doesn't cause accidents, then why do we have speed cameras?
By Steve Farrell
Politics & the law
26 June 2007 12:51
The Government has just published its response to a call from MPs for motorcycles to be fitted with speed limiters to cut accidents.
The response is: It wouldn't work. Only 4% of motorcycle accidents are caused by speeding and measures should instead focus on major contributory factors.
It should come as a relief. If the response had been different, we might have been a step closer to bikes which automatically slow down if we stray over the limit.
But it's also galling. Because if speeding doesn't cause accidents, why do we have over 5,000 speed cameras on UK roads? Why have over 12 million UK motorists been convicted by speed cameras since 1992? Why has over œ700 million in fines been paid? Why have licences and livelihoods been lost for creeping over the limit by a few mph?
In 2000, when speed cameras began to spread more rapidly as fines started to be ploughed back into building more, the Government's position was totally different. Then it told us: "Research has shown that speed is a major contributory factor in about one third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps to kill around 1200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads."
MCN said at the time that the figures were little short of lies, arrived at by taking the number accidents in which speed was reported as contributory factor and adding on some in which it was not. The feeble justification was that other contributory factors, such as travelling too close to the vehicle in front, were likely to have more severe consequences at higher speeds.
If pressed, Government can point that while earlier figures referred to both exceeding the speed limit and going too fast for conditions, the latest figure refers just to exceeding the speed limit. But that leaves the question of why it has taken till now for them to acknowledge that measures to stop speeding will only tackle the latter.
It's a revealing picture of how Governments manipulate research to suit their policies, rather than the other way round. Unfortunately, fines, lost licences and livelihoods aren't the only consequences. The excessive focus on speeding has led to a neglect of other accident causes, such as simple bad driving or riding, through a fall in traffic police numbers. Now Loughborough University has reported that the UK has fallen behind in accident rates compared to other European countries - our crash rate fell by only 7% between 2001 and 2005 compared with a 35% fall in France. Which means the real cost of the spin is lives.
Calls for speed limiters on bikes came from the Transport Committee, a group of MPs appointed by the House of Commons to scrutinise Government transport policy. Here's what the Transport Committee demanded, along the Government's response in full.
Transport Committee: Motorcycle accident rates are far too high. They have been for ten years. It is time to consider radical action to tackle this problem. A case was made to the Committee for limiting the speed of the more powerful motorcycles, though some technical issues still need to be resolved. The Government's work on Intelligent Speed Adaptation is encouraging. We recommend that the Government commission a companion piece of research on the viability of introducing speed limiters on motorcycles in order to stimulate a sensible debate of the options.
Government response: The Department concurs with the TSCs observations that motorcycle accident rates are too high, and we are seeking to address this through the various measures set out in the Government's Motorcycling Strategy. The Committee will recognise the progress that has already been made in this area, 2005 motorcycle casualty rates1 are 8% lower than the previous year and 26% lower than the 1994-98 baseline level.
In targeting accidents, research should focus on the major contributory factors. Road
Casualties Great Britain 2005 identified "exceeding the speed limit" as a contributory factor in only 4%2 of motorcycle accidents. A speed limiter would address a proportion of those accidents, but wouldn't necessarily impact on instances of inappropriate speed or "going too fast for the conditions", a contributory factor in 9% of motorcycle accidents.
Limiting "the more powerful motorcycles" to a top speed such as 70mph would potentially prevent only a small number of accidents which take place above the highest GB legal speed limit. Restricting the speed to 70mph would not address speeding in areas with lower limits, such as 30mph urban areas. In addition, focusing on "more powerful" motorcycles will not address accidents involving small and medium categories. Nor would it address accidents involving any motorcycle where the speed of the motorcycle was not a factor.
The Department is reviewing current knowledge in respect to driver behaviour with "intelligent" devices along the lines of ISA and a report is due to be published later this year. We will continue to address the high rates of motorcycle accidents through the Government's motorcycling strategy actions and ongoing research programmes. Currently there are no plans for motorcycle speed limiter trials or for speed limiters of any type to be made compulsory.
To find out how the Government's response also shot down claims from the Transport Committee that motorcycles cause more pollution than cars, get MCN, June 27.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2007/June/june25-jul2/jun2607speedlimiteropinion/?R=EPI-92264
"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"
By Steve Farrell
Politics & the law
26 June 2007 12:51
The Government has just published its response to a call from MPs for motorcycles to be fitted with speed limiters to cut accidents.
The response is: It wouldn't work. Only 4% of motorcycle accidents are caused by speeding and measures should instead focus on major contributory factors.
It should come as a relief. If the response had been different, we might have been a step closer to bikes which automatically slow down if we stray over the limit.
But it's also galling. Because if speeding doesn't cause accidents, why do we have over 5,000 speed cameras on UK roads? Why have over 12 million UK motorists been convicted by speed cameras since 1992? Why has over œ700 million in fines been paid? Why have licences and livelihoods been lost for creeping over the limit by a few mph?
In 2000, when speed cameras began to spread more rapidly as fines started to be ploughed back into building more, the Government's position was totally different. Then it told us: "Research has shown that speed is a major contributory factor in about one third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps to kill around 1200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads."
MCN said at the time that the figures were little short of lies, arrived at by taking the number accidents in which speed was reported as contributory factor and adding on some in which it was not. The feeble justification was that other contributory factors, such as travelling too close to the vehicle in front, were likely to have more severe consequences at higher speeds.
If pressed, Government can point that while earlier figures referred to both exceeding the speed limit and going too fast for conditions, the latest figure refers just to exceeding the speed limit. But that leaves the question of why it has taken till now for them to acknowledge that measures to stop speeding will only tackle the latter.
It's a revealing picture of how Governments manipulate research to suit their policies, rather than the other way round. Unfortunately, fines, lost licences and livelihoods aren't the only consequences. The excessive focus on speeding has led to a neglect of other accident causes, such as simple bad driving or riding, through a fall in traffic police numbers. Now Loughborough University has reported that the UK has fallen behind in accident rates compared to other European countries - our crash rate fell by only 7% between 2001 and 2005 compared with a 35% fall in France. Which means the real cost of the spin is lives.
Calls for speed limiters on bikes came from the Transport Committee, a group of MPs appointed by the House of Commons to scrutinise Government transport policy. Here's what the Transport Committee demanded, along the Government's response in full.
Transport Committee: Motorcycle accident rates are far too high. They have been for ten years. It is time to consider radical action to tackle this problem. A case was made to the Committee for limiting the speed of the more powerful motorcycles, though some technical issues still need to be resolved. The Government's work on Intelligent Speed Adaptation is encouraging. We recommend that the Government commission a companion piece of research on the viability of introducing speed limiters on motorcycles in order to stimulate a sensible debate of the options.
Government response: The Department concurs with the TSCs observations that motorcycle accident rates are too high, and we are seeking to address this through the various measures set out in the Government's Motorcycling Strategy. The Committee will recognise the progress that has already been made in this area, 2005 motorcycle casualty rates1 are 8% lower than the previous year and 26% lower than the 1994-98 baseline level.
In targeting accidents, research should focus on the major contributory factors. Road
Casualties Great Britain 2005 identified "exceeding the speed limit" as a contributory factor in only 4%2 of motorcycle accidents. A speed limiter would address a proportion of those accidents, but wouldn't necessarily impact on instances of inappropriate speed or "going too fast for the conditions", a contributory factor in 9% of motorcycle accidents.
Limiting "the more powerful motorcycles" to a top speed such as 70mph would potentially prevent only a small number of accidents which take place above the highest GB legal speed limit. Restricting the speed to 70mph would not address speeding in areas with lower limits, such as 30mph urban areas. In addition, focusing on "more powerful" motorcycles will not address accidents involving small and medium categories. Nor would it address accidents involving any motorcycle where the speed of the motorcycle was not a factor.
The Department is reviewing current knowledge in respect to driver behaviour with "intelligent" devices along the lines of ISA and a report is due to be published later this year. We will continue to address the high rates of motorcycle accidents through the Government's motorcycling strategy actions and ongoing research programmes. Currently there are no plans for motorcycle speed limiter trials or for speed limiters of any type to be made compulsory.
To find out how the Government's response also shot down claims from the Transport Committee that motorcycles cause more pollution than cars, get MCN, June 27.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2007/June/june25-jul2/jun2607speedlimiteropinion/?R=EPI-92264
"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"
"I\'d clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"
0
Comments
-
So 4% of accidents are caused by someone exceeding 100mph on the M3 at 2am, but 9% of accidents are caused by some knob driving in a 'spirited' manner on a country road when the road conditions aren't safe to do so !
"I\'d clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"0 -
Sounds about right.
For example on the other thread about the countries most dangerous roads, would the A54 Cat and Fiddle road be on there if it wasn't for 'spirited' motorcyclists?
Speed doesn't kill, its when and where you do it that matters.
<font size="1">Hickory Dickory Dock,
A baby elephant ran up the clock,
The clock is being repaired</font id="size1"><font size="1">Hickory Dickory Dock,
A baby elephant ran up the clock,
The clock is being repaired</font id="size1">0 -
I rode the cat and fiddle last year. Its biggest problem is its so unforgiving if you get it wrong. I was touring up to the lakes and took the road in to see what the fuss is about , but I thought that snake pass was a much nicer road. Its not just bikes which takes chances on the cat & fiddle btw !
"I\'d clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"0 -
It may be that speeding only causes a small percentage of accidents, but of course higher speed will invariably make any accident more serious, and indeed may make avoiding an incident more difficult.0
-
I think the point being made is 'inappropriate speed' for the conditions is a bigger cause, not the number on the dial - IE 'spirited' driving in ones supercar at 99mph on a narrow and twisty 50mph road is far more likely to cause an accident than driving at 101mph in the outside lane on the M3 at 2am.
"I\'d clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"0 -
Did you se that thing on the news about the appalling accident rates amongst uber saloons, such as Scoobies, Evos, RS4s, etc? The government are up in arms and want to (be seen to...) do something about it. Mr angry minister pointed out hat these rocket ships are second only to superminis in their mortality rate.
Hold on.
<i>Second</i> to superminis?
Then why waste time with these cars and not concentrate on the most 'dangerous' class of car instead?
Left hand and right sums up this governments knee jerk approach to road safety issues.
<i><b>Eating baby elephants since 1969</b></i><i><b>Commute - you might even enjoy it!</b></i>0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by The Endorser</i>
Did you se that thing on the news about the appalling accident rates amongst uber saloons, such as Scoobies, Evos, RS4s, etc? The government are up in arms and want to (be seen to...) do something about it. Mr angry minister pointed out hat these rocket ships are second only to superminis in their mortality rate.
Hold on.
<i>Second</i> to superminis?
Then why waste time with these cars and not concentrate on the most 'dangerous' class of car instead?
Left hand and right sums up this governments knee jerk approach to road safety issues.
<i><b>Eating baby elephants since 1969</b></i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It's also possible that they realise that a hell of a lot of voters drive superminis. A lot of government activity is to get whipped up into righteous indignation over identifiable minority groups. This is designed to produce headlines such as:
"Gov to crack down on young maniac drivers in rocket cars."0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by linfordlunchbox</i>
I think the point being made is 'inappropriate speed' for the conditions is a bigger cause, not the number on the dial - IE 'spirited' driving in ones supercar at 99mph on a narrow and twisty 50mph road is far more likely to cause an accident than driving at 101mph in the outside lane on the M3 at 2am.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Stating the obvious isn't it. I am surprised that the motorway figure is so high. Difficult to have an accident at 2am surely?0 -
I don't disagree. But suppose you have a blow-out at 101mph - accident not due to excessive speed (assuming proper tyres and all that) but the accident will be bigger than if you had been doing 70mph.0
-
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by linfordlunchbox</i>
I think the point being made is 'inappropriate speed' for the conditions is a bigger cause, not the number on the dial - IE 'spirited' driving in ones supercar at 99mph on a narrow and twisty 50mph road is far more likely to cause an accident than driving at 101mph in the outside lane on the M3 at 2am.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Agreed but there is still a case to be made for fitting limiters even if it is set a bit above 70 (to allow for European (except for parts of Germany) driving). I sometimes drive a car with a variable limiter and it is a damned sight easier to concentrate on the road conditions when the limiter is set to, say, 30 mph rather than having to always look at the speedo and checking for gatso.0 -
if your in bed do you need continual prompting when to 'satisfy' your good lady (or man)...is there a little voice from a speker in the head board "just a wee bit slower"
for god sake...you're not safe to be on the roads...realising what speed your doing is....eh.....a rather fundamental and important driving skill
following your logic those sitting their driving tests should be fitted with limiters so as they wouldn't fail????
brilliant you are[:(][:(]
www.squadraporcini.com0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gillan1969</i>
if your in bed <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">.. and in English?
Anything that helps to keep to the speed limit is an aid to road safety.0 -
One thing to remember on this is that a lot of the push for speed and power limits on bikes came from dear departed Martin Bangemann, an allegedly corrupt German politician turned EU Commissioner and since sacked, who had a feud with his sons, who are motorcycle enthusiasts.
This is the same man who wanted the A5 in North Wales turned into a six lane motorway as part of the "TERN", as well as the prawn cocktail crisps maestro.
If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or DickIf I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K0 -
Certain groups have deliberately separated "speeding" (going over the limit) from "speeding" (going too fast for the conditions).
It is a smart thing to do if you are anti-speed cameras. Devices that record if you are over the speed limit.
If you are anti-speed cameras you are saying it is OK to drive faster: the enforcement of limits is wrong. In short - anti-speed cameras is pro-driving too fast for the conditions.
--
<font size="1">[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one</font id="size1">0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tourist Tony</i>
One thing to remember on this is that a lot of the push for speed and power limits on bikes came from dear departed Martin Bangemann<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">i remember that tw4t, and i use the 'T' word with a passion - he was chapioning compulsory knee protectors for motorcycles, despite numerous research organisation having long since proven that they tore the rider in 2 at the hip in a high speed smack.
He must really have hated those boy!
<i><b>Eating baby elephants since 1969</b></i><i><b>Commute - you might even enjoy it!</b></i>0 -
Well, the gentleman was sacked along with other corrupt politicians when the Cresson "EU kob for my dentist" scandal broke.
EU politician---corrupt---bit of a tautology there.
I really do hate that fat German.
If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or DickIf I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K0
