Safe Speed Forums

This is the opening statement of an advert playing on Real radio in Wales at the moment, needless to say it comes from the scamera partnership. How true is it?

Looking at the partnership site, if their exceptionally selective manner of publishing figures is anything to go by I suspect it is far from the truth.
http://www.checkyourspeed.org.uk/fe/def ... n1=1&n2=40
This does not actually say KSI figures went down does it, only that they went down in selected areas. Moving a problem isn't really the same as REmoving it is it?

So on that basis the safest speed to drive is zero....

Did you know the greatest killer in the western world is sleep. More people die in there sleep than at any other time. Scientists should work on preventing sleep. That way we could save more than 150,000 lives per year.

You have to take some theories at face value. The facts don't always stack up.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

It is also true (though I am not suggesting it is an excuse for driving at excessive speed) that the less time you spend on the road the less chance there is you will be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course you will then spend more time in the most dangerous place in the country - at home.

This doesn't really hold true, as virtually all road hazards are related to distance rather than time. If you drive through five dangerous junctions more quickly, you will still have driven through five dangerous junctions. The only genuinely time-related hazards are falling ill at the wheel and objects falling from the sky.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I agree with the first part - virtually all hazards are related to distance rather than time. However, the example you quote - driving through junctions (by this I assume you mean, eg, running red lights) are actually time-related - and no I am not advocating running red lights at over the ton!

For a truly random red-light jump and a given density of cross traffic, you are far less likely to have an encounter if you do it quickly. However, the consequence of such a move, if you do have a bang, are far more dire. This has been shown time and again on the Police Stop TV series.

The time/distance thing is actually rather important. Which is it that raises the chances of having an accident more.
1. Time spent on the road
2. The distance travelled

It may seem like symantics here but apply it to the way figures are published (3200 deaths a year). If distance is the predominent factor then to actually measure road safety changes we should be measuring in distance. In which case, given demographics puts more people on the road each year thus more miles driven, a static figure is an improvement.

If you look at the statistics on Paul's site, you'll see that he always considers the significant figure to be fatalities/injuries per bn vehicle kilometres, not simply per head of population.

2003 was the first year for a long time when the number of fatalities per bn v/km actually rose.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed