Safe Speed Forums

Very recently published research from the TRL:

http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/trl629.pdf

The main conclusion is that more drivers are dying because they are getting worse at avoiding big crashes. Well that's what I've been saying all along...

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

... and not a mention of cameras. Not one word.

Still they bang on about excessive speed - 31% and two fifths are figures mentioned.

I guessthe camera was too hot a poilitical football for them to even place on the field, let alone to run with.

They have also steered clear of showing that excessive speed crashes are increasing over time. (I'm quite sure they are). And they have steered clear of showing combinations of contributory factors.

But the truth is coming out, drip by drip.

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

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 05:06 this morning:

PR180: TRL Confirms: Drivers are getting worse

News: for immediate release

New TRL research confirms one critical road safety fact that Safe
Speed has been putting forward for several years; in the speed camera
era drivers are getting worse and worse at avoiding big crashes.

The research stops short of explaining why drivers are getting worse -
but there's only one credible explanation - bad road safety policy is
responsible.

Modern policy, concentrating of restrictions, dangerously ignores the
vital contribution to road safety of skills, attitudes and
responsibilities from all road users.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) explains: "We're handing out more restrictions
and more penalties coupled with grossly oversimplified road safety
messages. It should be transparently obvious that such policies will
have dangerous side effects. Drivers are under pressure and of course
they aren't performing as well. But that's not all - we're also
missing out on the benefits of good policies - it's a deadly double
whammy that has claimed about 8,000 lives so far."

Paul continues: "We're entitled to see the ongoing benefit of fast
improving vehicle safety, but the reduction in the quality of driving
is more than offsetting the benefit and deaths are going up. Traffic
is increasing, but the growth in traffic is small compared to these
effects."

"Speed cameras are the foundation of the bad policy," explains Paul,
"Without the infernal cameras we'd never have made the fatal mistakes.
It's absolutely vital that we get back to the policies and the
expertise that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the world in the
first place. We have to start by recognising the failure and scrapping
the cameras."

Safe Speed research and analysis explains exactly where we have gone
wrong in considerable detail. The new TRL research simply confirms a
basic finding made by Safe Speed well over 3 years ago.

Safe Speed has issued various challenges to the authorities to discuss
the matter in public debate. That challenge is repeated today.

"Let's have the facts out in the open". says Paul, "Speed camera
tickets are going through the ceiling. We're having more excessive
speed crashes. More people are dying. The camera proponents are
spinning like tops to try to convince us that their jobs are
worthwhile."

<ends>

Notes for editors:

New TRL research:
TRL629: Car Occupant and Motorcyclist Deaths 1994 to 2002
http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/trl629.pdf


Challenge PR issued December 2003:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr104.html


Challenge web page issued April 2004:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/challenge.html


Radio 4 and Robert Gifford respond to the challenge...
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/stone.html
...resulted in 'the Stone Report'

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

So, a possible cause of why people are dying is not analysed.

A usual research approach to this problem would be to take a statistically representative sample (say 1000) and analyse that in detail.

Probable cost with access to DVLC circa £5k effort.

Heck all 2000+ drivers could have been looked at for £10k.

A possible other explanation is that cars are becoming so cheap to buy and run that people in society who never had cars before (and probably shouldn't) are driving. Those too dense to pass gcses are just ignoring driving tests altogether and driving. There are also a greater number of people from Europe who may not be conversant with UK road regulations and are driving? Society is changing and becoming more individualistic and pressured time wise which all lead to dangerous driving habits and the kind of selfishness which often precedes an accident ie asserting a right of way over someone else when you don't really have one.

We need to find out how many large crashes are caused by these groups of people to see whether the underlying crash avoidance is changing or that society has become more reckless but people's skills for accident avoidance have stayed the same.

Not having a driving license doesn't increase the chances of somebody who actually knows how to drive a motor vehicle being involved in an accident one bit.

The primary key to accident free driving is common sense, and no amount of tests can teach you that.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

True, but not having a licence increases the likelyhood that a test hasn't been taken, which in turn increases the likelyhood that the required minimum standard hasn't been reached, and / or that a decent amount of training hasn't been received.

I'd be amazed if there weren't a very clear reduction in "driver quality" when comparing a group of unlicenced drivers with a group of licenced ones. It's just a percentages game.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Totally disagree with Gixxer, a careful driver is much more likely to have a licence that a driver who is inclined to take risks. It is the risk taking drivers who will be have a higher chance of accidents. That is why insurance rates are so high for young males (Insurance companies know how to reduce their risks).

Also Paul has pointed out elsewhere that in child pedestrians males have twice the death rate of females. Recklessness has been sited as the main cause of this

Elsewhere on this site police members have noted the high incidence of unlicensed in fatal accidents. I am amazed that TRL could not research it.

I agree with Teabelly's point that people who cant take the right (safe) decisions on their education are more likely to take risks on roads.



A person with common sense would get a license.

Tests, particularly the current two part version (that a relative has been through) will encourage better driving. Tests are certainly more stringent and more likely to encourage safe driving than the one I took 30 yrs ago. Just have a look at the Hazard perception test which is a major improvement on the past as it encourages the driver to anticipate problems and rewards how quickly they recognise it.

Nice to see someone else singing my song.

I thought I had to copyright to the 'Consumerism is the New Religion' theme song.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I'll hum it, you do the words OK?

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one JT.

I started riding motorcycles when I was 4 years of age, by the time I reached 6 years of age I had the ability to make most experienced road users (motorcyclists) look like total incompetents in the riding & control stakes.
Driving a car (or riding a motorcycle) is a very simple task in itself, and even the most brain dead of idiots can master it in a very short time indeed.
All that taking (and passing) a test proves is that for 30 minutes of your life you had the ability to start, stop, steer, & park the vehicle you were in control of.

Driving safely is down to common sense & a very basic level of spacial awareness at the end of the day.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I was a bit of a "baby driver" myself, being in charge of various vehicles around the farm from pretty much as soon as I could reach the pedals! But I would say that we are very much the exception rather than any sort of indication of what is typical.

I'd guess that 90% of drivers have their first experience of driving when they take to the road as a learner, and for those a structured scheme of lessons + test is vital if they are to reach even the bare minimum of competence.

Furthermore, there is much more to being a driver than the physical act of driving. I would have to admit that my early experiences gave me a great deal of car control (and therefore confidence) but next to no hazard awareness., most of which I gleaned via various narrow escapes over the next few years! A good training / test system ought to circumvent this hazardous process...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I would assume that part of a licence test is a test of the driver’s knowledge of the road rules (as it is down under). Therefore a driver who has studied the rules, even if it is simply to pass a test, would have to be a safer driver than someone who has not.

just my .02c worth.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

I was looking at the KSI stats recently. According to SCPs the KSIs are comming down but the fatalities are going up. That means that more serious accidents must now involve fatalities.

This is a worrying trend. The Government can claim it is meeting its KSI targets when the death toll is going up.

From this I can only deduce that the seriousness of accidents must be going up dramaticaly.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

post edited

I twigged this about 12 months ago, when we were arguing about it over on the CSCP forum.

I couldn't get my head round how little the DfT seemed to be bothered about the changing fatality trend, when they had a clear 2010 target to meet.

Eventually it dawned on me that they couldn't give a hoot about fatalities, or even the number of accidents fully stop. All they need to do is continue to make subtle indirect adjustments to the way that SIs are defined and they will meet their target with ease.

Just tightening up on hospitals admissions policies will easily give them the drop in SIs that they need to meet their target. Why spend any money on preventing fatalities when there are ten times as many SIs to have a go at?

This is why we all need to vigorously oppose the current misleading system of measurement. It absolutely works against the first principle of road safety - that of saving human life.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

No, there's much more too it than that. Have a look at the trends on:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/smeed.html

Traffic was growing much faster in percentage terms in earlier decades.

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

paul

I was misled by TRL and their lack of historical context, I have removed the original text