Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 22:27

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Road Accident Statistics
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 15:59 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 15:52
Posts: 3
Can anyone help?

I am trying to find out a ture breakdown of car accidents. Not how many Fatal or serious injuries as these are easy to get. What i am looking for is a resource of the true figure of accidents, causes etc. Not just those that are attended to by the police

Is there data out there from insurance companies?

Can anyone help?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 16:30 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Hi.

I'm afraid I can't help you with that, perhaps someone else can.
My curiosity has got the better of me - can I ask why you want this information?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 17:37 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30
Posts: 144
Location: Cleveland
The Police will have causation / contributory data for all serious and fatal collisions. Since the data will be compiled after the incident, I am not sure how reliable it will be.

I don't think it is going to be possible to locate causation data for collisions that occur that do not involve the police (damage only) as this would rely on each party providing accurate information at the time of the collion. This is unlikely to happen since the average man in the street has no idea about causation and contributory factors.

I, too, am interested as to the purpose of your research.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 01:16 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I don't think there is anything in the public domain I'm afraid. I take it you've searched for the "STATS 19" database? I don't think it has much detail though. Also seems to be at odds with hospital figures for road casualties.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 16:07 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 15:52
Posts: 3
Have you ever heard of the Health and Safety triangle - for every fatal accident there is 33 serious accidents and 333 minor accidents - i believe this can also be apllied to RTC's - for every 1 fatal, theres 33 serious accidents, 333 minor accidents and perhaps 3,333 minor pbumbs scuffs and knocks that are never recorded statisticly.

Now if you want to reduce the fatal and serious accidents, you aim at the reducing the 3,333, if you can reduce this you may reduce the figures above it? its my theory anyway,

So before you can aim at reducing the number of fatal and serious accidents on our roads you need to find out what causes the smaller ones and set about educating against those problems.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 16:08 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30
Posts: 144
Location: Cleveland
Hopy wrote:
Have you ever heard of the Health and Safety triangle - for every fatal accident there is 33 serious accidents and 333 minor accidents - i believe this can also be apllied to RTC's - for every 1 fatal, theres 33 serious accidents, 333 minor accidents and perhaps 3,333 minor pbumbs scuffs and knocks that are never recorded statisticly.


No, i've not heard of it. Have you a source?

_________________
All views expressed are personal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 16:12 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
ipsg.glf wrote:
Hopy wrote:
Have you ever heard of the Health and Safety triangle - for every fatal accident there is 33 serious accidents and 333 minor accidents - i believe this can also be apllied to RTC's - for every 1 fatal, theres 33 serious accidents, 333 minor accidents and perhaps 3,333 minor pbumbs scuffs and knocks that are never recorded statisticly.

No, i've not heard of it. Have you a source?

I'm sure I recall Paul at some point discussing a 1:10:100 ratio between K, SI and I.

However in recent years K seems to have been creeping up as a proportion of the total - reductions in KSI are not reflected in reductions in K. This suggests something is going awry with the underlying model.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 16:39 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30
Posts: 144
Location: Cleveland
PeterE wrote:
ipsg.glf wrote:
Hopy wrote:
Have you ever heard of the Health and Safety triangle - for every fatal accident there is 33 serious accidents and 333 minor accidents - i believe this can also be apllied to RTC's - for every 1 fatal, theres 33 serious accidents, 333 minor accidents and perhaps 3,333 minor pbumbs scuffs and knocks that are never recorded statisticly.

No, i've not heard of it. Have you a source?

I'm sure I recall Paul at some point discussing a 1:10:100 ratio between K, SI and I.

However in recent years K seems to have been creeping up as a proportion of the total - reductions in KSI are not reflected in reductions in K. This suggests something is going awry with the underlying model.


I can't for the life of me work out how focusing attention on minor (damage only) collisions - which the OP is suggesting - affects fatal collisions which might be occuring hundered of miles away. Am I missing something?

_________________
All views expressed are personal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 17:09 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
ipsg.glf wrote:
PeterE wrote:
ipsg.glf wrote:
Hopy wrote:
Have you ever heard of the Health and Safety triangle - for every fatal accident there is 33 serious accidents and 333 minor accidents - i believe this can also be apllied to RTC's - for every 1 fatal, theres 33 serious accidents, 333 minor accidents and perhaps 3,333 minor pbumbs scuffs and knocks that are never recorded statisticly.

No, i've not heard of it. Have you a source?

I'm sure I recall Paul at some point discussing a 1:10:100 ratio between K, SI and I.

However in recent years K seems to have been creeping up as a proportion of the total - reductions in KSI are not reflected in reductions in K. This suggests something is going awry with the underlying model.



I can't for the life of me work out how focusing attention on minor (damage only) collisions - which the OP is suggesting - affects fatal collisions which might be occuring hundered of miles away. Am I missing something?

Maybe something along the lines of, if drivers are educated/trained/informed better and avoid having minor shunts, then maybe the knock on impact (no pun intended) has an effect on lessening the total fatalities?

Just thinking out loud...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Last edited by BottyBurp on Tue Jan 08, 2008 17:14, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 17:10 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:35
Posts: 643
Location: South Wales
I think it works like this:

Using Paul's ratio of 1:10:100 if we concentrate on the K then we are trying to predict a pretty random event, predict the major causes of that event occurring and try to treat them before it occurs.

However if we look at common factors that result in the 100 and treat the common issues then this will filter through to the remainder.

As an example if a K collision occurs and it's decided that inappropriate speed and following too closely are largely to blame then by treating this instance we may put up more speed limit signs, reduce the limit, put chevrons on the road etc etc - this may help to stop the same type of collision occurring in the same place but other than that it's useless.

If instead we teach COAST to the 100 then we reduce the chances of the 1 and 10 occurring anywhere on the road network, and perhaps significantly reduce the 100.

That's my (badly worded) interpretation.

Cheers

Paul

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 21:32 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Actually this makes a lot of sense.

Better trained drivers would have less crashes.

And if you have less crashes it must follow that there would be less fatal crashes, too.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 00:54 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
Hopy wrote:
Is there data out there from insurance companies?


Paul tried to get this information many times, unfortunately insurance companies deem it to be commercially sensitive data and are unwilling to place it in the public domain.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 09:59 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 15:52
Posts: 3
Yeah, i think thats the case,

It's a shame because you don't need specific dates and times etc, just the outliying causes of many accidents. Insurance companies must keep a data base of accidents as thats how they calculate your premium.

All you need to get the ball rolling is

Cause fo accident - tyres, wet road etc
Location - traffic lights, junctions etc
Age of drivers - 17 - 25 / 25 - 40 / 40 - 60 etc
age of cars involved
etc
etc
etc


This info would give the target groups, areas, age groups to educate and the reasons - tyres, driving in poor light etc for different areas of the country.

So simply put if there were 2,000 accidents within a county and that was broken down into various results - 150 cars had worn tyres, 20 cars were of this type, 225 were between the age of 17 & 25, 600 accidients took place on wet roads. etc etc etc -

you could then educate 17 - 27 yr olds / promote the checking of tyres bla bla bla

i'm rambling abit, but do you get the idea?


The theory works like this:

1 Death
10 Serious injury
100 Minor injury
1000 minor bumps

Reduce the the minor bumps by 50% (example) then it would have a knock on effect and it would look like this

0.5 Deaths
5 Serious injury
50 Minor injury
500 minor bumps

so you would have reduce your deaths to 0.5 per year.

Hope this makes sense, it's just an idea


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:38 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30
Posts: 144
Location: Cleveland
Hopy

I would hope for those Police Forces that have proper Collision Investigation Units that this type of thing already goes on.

But what about those areas that have disbanded their RPU's and enforce speed primarily by speed canera - I can't see much emphasis being paid to tyres, HGV's, inappropriate speed for conditions, etc..

_________________
All views expressed are personal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
Another way of looking at it is that it is likely much easier for "Fate" to turn a minor accident into a serious one than it is to turn a serious one into a minor one. simply because minor accidents out weigh serious ones by such a large factor.

Reduce the minor accidents and you will also reduce the serious ones.

In any case I have always felt that "Fatals" are over investigated compared to other accidents simply because they involve fatalities.

Consider the accident a while back where a recovery vehicle ran into the back of a lorry, Had "exactly" the same incident occured but with no fatalities, would there have been anything like as much investication??

If garry hart had had "exactly" the same accident but where there wasn't a railway line and he just came to rest in a field. Would he even have been prosecuted??

I suspect not.

Whether or not somebody dies in a RTA is largely down to luck. Its "accidents" we need to be investigating, not "Fatals" as such

The other problem with accedent investigation is that i suspect they are skewed by political pressure and box ticking.

EG Some years ago I read of an accident involving a collision on a contraflow. An Unlicenced minicab lost controll, ploughed through the cones and collided with a vhicle traveling in the opposite direction.

However, the "Victim" was found to be over the limit So Guess who lost his licence. And I will bet a crate of bubbly that this was listed in the official statistics as a "Drink related accident" :roll:

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 09:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643
Quote:
I would hope for those Police Forces that have proper Collision Investigation Units that this type of thing already goes on.


The Police don't usually get involved in minor collisions so the causes are not recorded. The insurance companies get notified of nearly all collisions though, so their data would be much more useful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30
Posts: 144
Location: Cleveland
semitone wrote:
Quote:
I would hope for those Police Forces that have proper Collision Investigation Units that this type of thing already goes on.


The Police don't usually get involved in minor collisions so the causes are not recorded. The insurance companies get notified of nearly all collisions though, so their data would be much more useful.


Sorry, I meant determining the causes of serious and fatal collisions. I'm aware that the polie do not deal with minor ones, but, like you say, the insurance companies do (assuming the collision is reported to them and not dealt with "without going through the insurance")

But, in any event, i would sincerely hope that Traffic Engineers are looking at engineering problems and TrafPol are dealing with education/enforcement issues.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.332s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]