Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Apr 07, 2020 19:41

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 19:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
I have heard that Safe Speed promote not the usual attitude towards accident awareness, that of reducing speed, but instead say that driver eduction is far more succesful.
I was surprised, therefore, to not be able to find a section on this website which could convey to me the ideas I need to adopt to make me a safer driver.

It would be very ironic if no such area existed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 22:15 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Ermmm... I had a quick search of the main website and found absolutely tonnes of stuff on road safety and driver education using the search box provided.

Searching for 'COAST' is a good way to start.

:)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 00:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
It's everywhere rather than nowhere.

But if you want a great place to start, get a copy of MIND DRIVING. See the information and the link on the front page: http://www.safespeed.org.uk

Anyway, the purpose of this site and the campaign is to promote better road safety policy, not teach better driving. They overlap, of course, but not that much. The 'quality driving' materials in the forum and elsewhere are more the result of the passions that drive us, rather than something that the campaign depends upon.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 00:27 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
fixitsan wrote:
I have heard that Safe Speed promote not the usual attitude towards accident awareness, that of reducing speed, but instead say that driver eduction is far more succesful.
I was surprised, therefore, to not be able to find a section on this website which could convey to me the ideas I need to adopt to make me a safer driver.

It would be very ironic if no such area existed !

I think it's best feature is the interactive debates which take place on the forums.
Different posters can put forward differing views, and the rest of us sit in judgment and comment - or shoot you down in flames!
We all come here because we WANT to become more aware.
Definitely check out the COAST section -if you cannot find it, I'm sure somebody will help out with a link!

You can even discuss the layout of a particular bit of road you like or hate. Just put up some pictures (host on Photobucket or similar) and we will offer some advice!

Oh, and :welcome:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 13:25 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Welcome fixitsan :welcome:

When I first came to SS, the first time I have ever used an internet forum, I hadn't a clue where to look for stuff or even how to post properly. But I was driven here, no pun intended, because of the failed road policies which are costing us all so dearly.

There are many who have completely the wrong idea about SS and Paul is often vilified, misquoted and misrepresented etc., as you will see over time.

There are pro-camera people out there with a 'if you're against speed cameras then you must be for death' stance. It's quite nauseating really because they have a hidden agenda and unworkable policy towards road safety and while ever more cameras are being installed people are losing their lives and livelihood.

I'm still no veteran but pull up a chair and have an e-drink on us :)

Take care and happy posting/viewing.

Tony :thumbsup:

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 20:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
I'll try to keep coming back regularly.

What I like is driving, what i don't like is disinformation and to me there seems to be a lot of it from both sides to tell the truth.

Cheers


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 23:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
fixitsan wrote:
I'll try to keep coming back regularly.

What I like is driving, what i don't like is disinformation and to me there seems to be a lot of it from both sides to tell the truth.

Cheers


There's no 'disinformation' coming from here. Ours is a battle to expose the truth.

If you find something you think is wrong, I want to hear about it. More than that, I'll give you my personal promise that I will put it right.

Naturally individual posters are free to express their opinions irrespective of whether they are well founded and right or ill founded and wrong.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 19:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
SafeSpeed wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
I'll try to keep coming back regularly.

What I like is driving, what i don't like is disinformation and to me there seems to be a lot of it from both sides to tell the truth.

Cheers


There's no 'disinformation' coming from here. Ours is a battle to expose the truth.

If you find something you think is wrong, I want to hear about it. More than that, I'll give you my personal promise that I will put it right.

Naturally individual posters are free to express their opinions irrespective of whether they are well founded and right or ill founded and wrong.



I hope I don't come across as illfounded and wrong then !
In a recent broadcast, qhich quoted information sourced from Safespeed, and on the topic of 20mph speed limits, some government statistics were quoted in such a way as to say that the accident rate in 20mph zones is not significantly lower than in 30mph zones.

The argument centred around the use of percentages in their own right, with no details of the size of the sample set, and no mention of the standard deviation, although I would be happy with the sample size information.

I did some digging around, and based ont he 2002 figures I got the following result

20mph zones:
all casualties: 564
killed or seriously injured: 77
percentage killed or seriously injured: 13.7%


30mph zones:
all casualties: 141,959
killed or seriously injured: 18,562
percentage killed or seriously injured: 13.1%

Therefore, clearly , in terms of percentages, there is a greater percentage of people killed as a result of an injury accident in a 20mph zone.

However , if I were to make that claim and suggest it is representative of the truth I would be wrong to do that because before someone can be killed there has to ba an accident first of all, and while no accident is acceptable, when you look at the number of injury accidents which took place I see that only 564 injury accidents happened on 20mph roads, compared to 141,959 on 30mph roads, which suggests that 20mph roads are far safer.

I appreciate that the number of 20mph road miles is much lower than the number of 30mph road miles, but when I see those figures produced as a part of some sort of shock and awe tactic I just get turned off and assume that because the full picture isn't being represented that some obfuscation is taking place.

I'll hang around and see what the general attitude is to this


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 19:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
fixitsan wrote:
However , if I were to make that claim and suggest it is representative of the truth I would be wrong to do that because before someone can be killed there has to ba an accident first of all, and while no accident is acceptable, when you look at the number of injury accidents which took place I see that only 564 injury accidents happened on 20mph roads, compared to 141,959 on 30mph roads, which suggests that 20mph roads are far safer.

I appreciate that the number of 20mph road miles is much lower than the number of 30mph road miles, but when I see those figures produced as a part of some sort of shock and awe tactic I just get turned off and assume that because the full picture isn't being represented that some obfuscation is taking place.

I'll hang around and see what the general attitude is to this


This has come up again in the last week and the material we issued is available at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/417

I'll stand by my accusation that the authorities are reckless to ignore their own data.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 19:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
SafeSpeed wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
However , if I were to make that claim and suggest it is representative of the truth I would be wrong to do that because before someone can be killed there has to ba an accident first of all, and while no accident is acceptable, when you look at the number of injury accidents which took place I see that only 564 injury accidents happened on 20mph roads, compared to 141,959 on 30mph roads, which suggests that 20mph roads are far safer.

I appreciate that the number of 20mph road miles is much lower than the number of 30mph road miles, but when I see those figures produced as a part of some sort of shock and awe tactic I just get turned off and assume that because the full picture isn't being represented that some obfuscation is taking place.

I'll hang around and see what the general attitude is to this


This has come up again in the last week and the material we issued is available at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/417

I'll stand by my accusation that the authorities are reckless to ignore their own data.


I'm interested in the comment which says what we need is more responsibility. Does that apply to the government, or the drivers of vehicles, even both ? And in what way.

drivers have been responsible for their actions since the first driver took to the road in the first car, so I presume you don't think drivers arent responsible enough, or do you ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 19:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
fixitsan wrote:
I'm interested in the comment which says what we need is more responsibility. Does that apply to the government, or the drivers of vehicles, even both ? And in what way.

drivers have been responsible for their actions since the first driver took to the road in the first car, so I presume you don't think drivers arent responsible enough, or do you ?


From the perspective of policy, driver are drivers. The job is to make them more effective at avoiding crashes. Attempts to do that with rapidly increasing regulation have failed. That's why we're here.

Policy MUST now recognise its deadly mistake and concentrate once more on driver quality.

An important part of this is the balance between regulation and responsibility. Increasing regulation has eroded individual responsibility and produced some awful road safety results.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 13:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
SafeSpeed wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
I'm interested in the comment which says what we need is more responsibility. Does that apply to the government, or the drivers of vehicles, even both ? And in what way.

drivers have been responsible for their actions since the first driver took to the road in the first car, so I presume you don't think drivers arent responsible enough, or do you ?


From the perspective of policy, driver are drivers. The job is to make them more effective at avoiding crashes. Attempts to do that with rapidly increasing regulation have failed. That's why we're here.

Policy MUST now recognise its deadly mistake and concentrate once more on driver quality.

An important part of this is the balance between regulation and responsibility. Increasing regulation has eroded individual responsibility and produced some awful road safety results.



I understand the concept, but wonder if we aren't at the stage where with accidents at around an all time low, with only slight annual variances, we are on the reciprocal part of the bell curve following the improvements.

We must accept that we cannot achieve zero accidents, we might expect that if the cars were allowed to drive for themselves, but people tire, have poor eyesight at times, their cars behave differently and so on, and lets not forget that nobody has perfect attention.

I think we have got to a point where road safety on the whole has become an issue of fighting the smallest possible enemies. At the moment I see the worst offenders as being young drivers because they're involved in more accidents per head of population.

Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 14:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
fixitsan wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
I'm interested in the comment which says what we need is more responsibility. Does that apply to the government, or the drivers of vehicles, even both ? And in what way.

drivers have been responsible for their actions since the first driver took to the road in the first car, so I presume you don't think drivers arent responsible enough, or do you ?


From the perspective of policy, driver are drivers. The job is to make them more effective at avoiding crashes. Attempts to do that with rapidly increasing regulation have failed. That's why we're here.

Policy MUST now recognise its deadly mistake and concentrate once more on driver quality.

An important part of this is the balance between regulation and responsibility. Increasing regulation has eroded individual responsibility and produced some awful road safety results.



I understand the concept, but wonder if we aren't at the stage where with accidents at around an all time low, with only slight annual variances, we are on the reciprocal part of the bell curve following the improvements.


No chance. For a start that's like saying 'we can't make cars any more crash-worthy' which isn't even remotely true. Same for roads. Same for post crash care and rescue.

Anyway our European neighbours are continuing to see improvements at the previous rates. So much so we have slipped to 17th/20 for rate of improvement.

fixitsan wrote:
We must accept that we cannot achieve zero accidents, we might expect that if the cars were allowed to drive for themselves, but people tire, have poor eyesight at times, their cars behave differently and so on, and lets not forget that nobody has perfect attention.


Yes. The proper objective of policy is to deliver continuous improvement. And that's what we're entitled to. We're not getting it because policy isn't working.

fixitsan wrote:
I think we have got to a point where road safety on the whole has become an issue of fighting the smallest possible enemies. At the moment I see the worst offenders as being young drivers because they're involved in more accidents per head of population.


Young drivers are a good target - but by no means the only target - for driver quality improvements.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 17:28 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
SafeSpeed wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
I'm interested in the comment which says what we need is more responsibility. Does that apply to the government, or the drivers of vehicles, even both ? And in what way.

drivers have been responsible for their actions since the first driver took to the road in the first car, so I presume you don't think drivers arent responsible enough, or do you ?


From the perspective of policy, driver are drivers. The job is to make them more effective at avoiding crashes. Attempts to do that with rapidly increasing regulation have failed. That's why we're here.

Policy MUST now recognise its deadly mistake and concentrate once more on driver quality.

An important part of this is the balance between regulation and responsibility. Increasing regulation has eroded individual responsibility and produced some awful road safety results.



I understand the concept, but wonder if we aren't at the stage where with accidents at around an all time low, with only slight annual variances, we are on the reciprocal part of the bell curve following the improvements.


No chance. For a start that's like saying 'we can't make cars any more crash-worthy' which isn't even remotely true. Same for roads. Same for post crash care and rescue.

No, it's nothing to do with post accident care, iut's nothing like saying we can't improve either roads or cars too.
It's merely saying that when you are ahead of the game in terms of the number of accidents per number of road miles/head of population we have already made the largest improvements and since then the decline in improvement is what you would expect to see when the ,measures brought into place to make improvements continue to keep on working






Anyway our European neighbours are continuing to see improvements at the previous rates. So much so we have slipped to 17th/20 for rate of improvement.


I would like to suggest that they are behind us in terms of overall accidents or deaths per mile of road driven/head of population. Therefore what you would expect to see is a larger step in their rate of annual improvement than ours, we are that much better than them at the moment.

We have to be realistic and decide to agree on how best to measure accidents. The usual way is to measure the number of deaths per number of road miles travelled. When you look at thenumber of deaths per billion km in the UK you see we were joint 1st in 2003, with only 7.6 deaths per billion km's on the road .

People often quote Germany as having safe roads, but theirs are worse than ours with 9.7 deaths per billion km's in 2003








fixitsan wrote:
We must accept that we cannot achieve zero accidents, we might expect that if the cars were allowed to drive for themselves, but people tire, have poor eyesight at times, their cars behave differently and so on, and lets not forget that nobody has perfect attention.


Yes. The proper objective of policy is to deliver continuous improvement. And that's what we're entitled to. We're not getting it because policy isn't working.


But you have pointed out that we have one of the lowest rates of improvement and decline to accept that it could possibly be because we have made the greatest improvements overall. Finland for example, who were in joint 1st place in terms of safe roads in 2003, also had a low improvement rate. Obviously they are finding it difficult to nail the last couple of percent, but overall the lion's share of improvements must have been made for them, and us, to be in that position in the first place.

I think if you can't accept that the number of deaths per billionkm's on the road is a realistic way to measure road safety we won't be able to agree on much else



fixitsan wrote:
I think we have got to a point where road safety on the whole has become an issue of fighting the smallest possible enemies. At the moment I see the worst offenders as being young drivers because they're involved in more accidents per head of population.


Young drivers are a good target - but by no means the only target - for driver quality improvements.


Would you be willing to share what you think is reasonable to expect from them in terms of quality improvement ? If education then what system would you use to drill home the message ?

I don't want to come across as being pro-government, or anti- Safespeed, all I want to see is that both sides agree to use a mutually satisfactory statistic in terms of measuring how safe the roads are, and I feel that number of deaths per billion km's is not unsatisfactory is it ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 17:51 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Your reasoning is flawed. While it is true that the frequency of such events will never reach zero, it is accepted that a working policy will make the frequency tend towards it. This is where the UK policy has failed, comparatively and absolutely.

Our trend for the fall of casualty per rate of casualty has substantially reduced in the last few years - in fact it has almost flattened out. One could expect a working policy to produce (say) a 10% year-on-year drop (this example does not mean the rate will be zero in 10 years), kind of like a half-life for atoms in radioactive material. Remember the target of "40% reduction by 2010" ?

See here.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 21:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
[quote="smeggy"]Your reasoning is flawed. While it is true that the frequency of such events will never reach zero, it is accepted that a working policy will make the frequency tend towards it. This is where the UK policy has failed, comparatively and absolutely.

Our trend for the fall of casualty per rate of casualty has substantially reduced in the last few years - in fact it has almost flattened out. One could expect a working policy to produce (say) a 10% year-on-year drop (this example does not mean the rate will be zero in 10 years), kind of like a half-life for atoms in radioactive material. Remember the target of "40% reduction by 2010" ?


Can you explain what is meant by a fall of casualty per rate of casualty ? That's a statistic referencing itself which doesn't seem too logical.
I know we need a working policy, but what would you call a working policy ?
You don't seem to disagree that we have about the safest roads in Europe, yet you don't seem to be using that as an argument for getting rid of speed cameras but instead seem to be going for the argument that the rate of improvement has slowed. Of course the rate of improvement has slowed we have got better at road safety, that's why.

If we say for argument's sake that the best we can do is to reach 4 deaths per billion miles, and we achieve that rate for two consecutive years, you will be making the claim that the government's policies have failed because there was no improvement. That's great for you because you can fight a cause which has no definitive end, but I think it's misleading to tell people how a reduced rate of improvement means we have poor road safety policy, when in fact we must have bloody good road safety if we have fewer deaths per km than in any other country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 22:38 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
fixitsan wrote:
Can you explain what is meant by a fall of casualty per rate of casualty ? That's a statistic referencing itself which doesn't seem too logical.

Sorry, I did wonder if that was a clear enough description.
This means the casualty rate will fall by a factor of the previous overall casualty rate, dependent on the effectiveness of the improvements to the system.
If the overall casualty prevention/mitigation/care gets better by 10% each year then we would expect a 10% fall in casualties every year. Note: this does not mean casualties will be 0 after 10 years (actually that would equate to an 10 year drop of 65%).

fixitsan wrote:
I know we need a working policy, but what would you call a working policy ?

One where people respect and, and have cause to respect, the resultant regulations.
One that focuses resource to the various factors in proportion according to their weighting.
A good indicator would be one that preservers or betters the long established long-term trend, or at least not level off.

fixitsan wrote:
You don't seem to disagree that we have about the safest roads in Europe, yet you don't seem to be using that as an argument for getting rid of speed cameras but instead seem to be going for the argument that the rate of improvement has slowed. Of course the rate of improvement has slowed we have got better at road safety, that's why.

If we say for argument's sake that the best we can do is to reach 4 deaths per billion miles, and we achieve that rate for two consecutive years, you will be making the claim that the government's policies have failed because there was no improvement. That's great for you because you can fight a cause which has no definitive end, but I think it's misleading to tell people how a reduced rate of improvement means we have poor road safety policy, when in fact we must have bloody good road safety if we have fewer deaths per km than in any other country.

There are continual ongoing improvements to the road network as well as policy changes and new laws. Cars are getting safer, by which I mean cars that the average joe drives (not necessarily cars from today’s showrooms). Post accident response and care is getting better. Everything points to an expected continuous fall in casualties - so why the level off? Have all of these improvement suddenly and totally failed to give the better results?
Why the deviation from the long-established long-term trend? Why such a sharp and pronounced deviation? Is it just coincidence that the deviation matches the rise in SCP activity?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 23:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
fixitsan wrote:
If we say for argument's sake that the best we can do is to reach 4 deaths per billion miles, and we achieve that rate for two consecutive years, you will be making the claim that the government's policies have failed because there was no improvement. That's great for you because you can fight a cause which has no definitive end, but I think it's misleading to tell people how a reduced rate of improvement means we have poor road safety policy, when in fact we must have bloody good road safety if we have fewer deaths per km than in any other country.


I haven't had time to keep up with this today, which is a shame.

But I must deal with this point.

The purpose of policy is to effect a rate of change. Road safety is a big system with lots of inertia! It needs pushing in the right direction.

When all the big previous 'drivers' of improvement are still present:

- safer cars on the road every year
- continued investment in road engineering
- ongoing decline in pedestrian activity
- ongoing improvements in post crash care and rescue

And we know from history that these input factors together are far bigger than the rise in traffic, then something is going very badly wrong.

I know what it is. I have no doubt left. Drivers are getting worse under the influence of ill-considered policy.

Our good record was built in the past. In the early 1990s we were 30% safer than any other country. Recent figures indicate that we have been overtaken by 5 other european countries. ALL the advantage has gone, relative to our safer neighbours. That's a BIG BIG loss in not much more than a decade.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 07:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
SafeSpeed wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
If we say for argument's sake that the best we can do is to reach 4 deaths per billion miles, and we achieve that rate for two consecutive years, you will be making the claim that the government's policies have failed because there was no improvement. That's great for you because you can fight a cause which has no definitive end, but I think it's misleading to tell people how a reduced rate of improvement means we have poor road safety policy, when in fact we must have bloody good road safety if we have fewer deaths per km than in any other country.


I haven't had time to keep up with this today, which is a shame.

But I must deal with this point.

The purpose of policy is to effect a rate of change. Road safety is a big system with lots of inertia! It needs pushing in the right direction.

When all the big previous 'drivers' of improvement are still present:

- safer cars on the road every year
- continued investment in road engineering
- ongoing decline in pedestrian activity
- ongoing improvements in post crash care and rescue

And we know from history that these input factors together are far bigger than the rise in traffic, then something is going very badly wrong.

I know what it is. I have no doubt left. Drivers are getting worse under the influence of ill-considered policy.

Our good record was built in the past. In the early 1990s we were 30% safer than any other country. Recent figures indicate that we have been overtaken by 5 other european countries. ALL the advantage has gone, relative to our safer neighbours. That's a BIG BIG loss in not much more than a decade.


Only if the loss of advantage is a result of a failure of policy such that there are now significantly more people dead per billion km's. I don't believe this to be the case, but if you have figures which show them can you tell me where I see for myself.
The only 'big loss' isn't really a loss if there is no decline, it merely means that other countries have at long last worked hard at becoming as safe as us and I cannot begrudge them that if it's true , can you ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 08:55 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Fixit, on another note, you might like this.... http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/notverygoodatstatistics.html

Navigate to the updated pages too, from the links for more on the subject, in the light of intervening changes to policy at the DfT.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.492s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]