Safe Speed Forums

They just said "26% of fatal accidents involve speeding drivers."

Is that correct, or did they make that up?

Mike.

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

They just clarified it as "Speed is a factor in 26% of fatal crashes."

Still wondering.

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

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

It depends on the definition of 'speeding' they're using. If they meen specifically 'speed in excess of the limit' then yes, they are lying. However if they're talking about 'inappropriate speed' then they are about right.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Watching it now - about to blow my top! Very misleading.

I think the 26% figure is a combination of driving too fast for the conditions, and breaking the posted limit.

Apparently, reducing the average traffic speed by 2mph will save 280 lives every year.

Its getting annoying now to be honest.

Mike.

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

It is sort of ture.
If all the cars in the UK where standing still, then there would be about 3000 less deaths a year

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Thanks, so technically correct then.

I do note that for the accidents involving pedestrians (they were, rather predictably, talking about kids crossing outside a school on the programme) 53% have not looking properly as a factor.

Which leads me to believe that people looking properly would have twice the benefit of slowing the traffic........ or am I missing something.

Mike.

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

While I have every sympathy for the families and people involved in this program; several factors annoyed me.

Brake were quoted. Nothing new there then.

They started the program with a couple talking about their 6 year old son being killed. Queue long story about the child being excited about his gun and shots of the road. Main fact that was mentioned at the end and then a quick cut to another story was that the child stepped out in front of the car. Why, if the child was excited, did the parents not have a tight hold on him?

They changed the percentage for children being killed if hit. At 20mph 95% survive while a 40mph 95% die. This was after showing the ad with the girl saying that she has an 80% chance of dying after being hit at 40mph.

The school with the kids who made the mock speed camera found that average traffic speeds went down. Well, they probably did. The first set of readings were taken by a man hidden behind a tree with dark clothing on while the second set of readings were taken with him in full view with a fluorescent jacket on and about half a dozen kids dressed the same. Anyone with half a brain cell would slow down with that amount of fluorescent jackets around.

Apparently speeding, not RTA's but speeding, costs the NHS around £70 million a year.

The only traffic police incident shown was a video of a car doing 50mph in a 30mph zone. He was followed approaching a roundabout on the wrong side of the road so he could "make up a bit of time. Then when the lights went green he cut across another car to get to his exit." The driver was given a speeding ticket where I thought he was going to be done for careless driving.

All the voice-overs used for the captions were young children.

I got told off by the missus for shouting at the TV so I don't think I'll be watching any more of these.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

This programme was so bad and misleading that the BBC deserve to hear about it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

Paul would probably be a good person to write a polite but harsh one, but I"ll certainly have a go tomorrow.

Only technically - yes. You have to dig deeper to understand the (lack of) significance of it.

[quote="orange"]This programme was so bad and misleading that the BBC deserve to hear about it:[quote]

Suitable comments sent!

No. It's technically bloody fraudulent.

see here

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

Sadly the captions diverted attention and clearly told some fibs.

The biggest message (which was so nearly lost) wasn't that speeding kills little children but that trying to get even the simplist road safety features installed when there's a clear need is like pulling out your own teeth with pliers Also clouding the water and only briefly covered, and not captioned, is how many of those kids died through little or no fault of the driver - the ones that ran into the road. Even with all the will and training in the world a substantial percentage of children who are KSI walked or ran into the path of the vehicle

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

The real story that's never told is that only about one child pedestrian dies per (very roughly) 4,000 incidents. The real road safety story is what happens in those other 3,999 incidents - with (also roughly) 3,500 of those incidents ending in no collision at all.

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

It is not as simple as that! If all the cars stood still than modern society as we know it would break down. People would not be able to attend hospitals beyond their own town, there would be a drop in education levels and your expected mortality would decrease.

Have you noticed that car ownership is linked to long life?

Not only that if all the cars stood still there would still be crashes as the bus drivers would not notice them

I watched a few seconds at intervals and it was pure indoctrination. The BBC seams to be out of control. It used to be the case that they had to ballance programs, but now we are subjected to continuous brain wash (especially about global warming theory)

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

This programme is also being discussed in: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14535

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

The statement that they pushed in the programme was x numbers killed and seriously injured. (I don't recall the figure they used but it seemed quit high)

This bothers me as I suspect 'seriously injured' is not particularly accurately measured (what is a serious injury and how does it compare to just an injury?) and quite probably distorts the figures somewhat in order to make the 'danger' they are trying to highlight seem far worse than it is.

To avoid one another missing points, I'll lock this thread. Please continue in the parallel thread that Paul linked to two posts above.

Thanks.