Safe Speed Forums

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 10:52 this morning:

PR531: For most of us, ONLY ONE IN FIFTY crashes involves speeding

news: for immediate release

Figures given by Department for Transport [1] reveal for the first time that
only one in fifty injury crashes involving drivers over the age of 25 (i.e. 26
and older) also involve 'exceeding a speed limit'.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "These new figures complete the
destruction of the case for speed cameras."

"If Department for Transport had road safety at the top of its priority list
these figures would have been shouted from the rooftops and associated with the
immediate dismantling of the failed speed camera programme. But at the top of
DfT's priority list is the intention to conceal the fact that they have got
road safety policy wrong. Clearly they would rather save face than save lives.
They haven't told the public about the figures. It is shameful."

"Of course the 2% figure is far from the whole story. Within that 2% are the
drunks, the thrill seekers, the stolen cars and so on. For the rest of us the
possibility of being involved in an injury crash while speeding are vanishingly
small."

"The tragedy is that we have put huge national resources into a problem that
simply does not exist. Those same resources could have been expended on well-
founded policies that would have saved real British lives."

"Speed camera policy was ill founded in the first place and has failed to make
our roads safer. To get road safety back on track, DfT must admit that it has
been chasing rainbows; pull the plug on the failed speed camera programme and
refocus national efforts on improving driver quality and effective roads
policing."

"Problems associated with young drivers mainly represent skills or attitude
shortfalls in a minority of inexperienced drivers. It is unreasonable to claim
that speed cameras could address this problem to any significant degree. For
the rest of us, speed cameras are a dangerous distraction at best."

"These new figures are all the more remarkable when considered alongside
Department for Transport figures [2] which reveal that more than half of
drivers are 'speeding' on most road types under free flowing conditions. This
means that for most of us 'speeding' is under-represented in the crash
statistics by 25:1. I'd love to hear Department for Transport attempt to
explain that away!"

Background note:

The introduction of speed cameras was founded on the false and misleading claim
that 'one third of crashes are caused by speeding'. As time has gone on, better
and better data has shown the claim to be entirely false. Famously in September
2006, Department for Transport were forced to publish figures indicating that
only 1 in 20 crashes involved any speeding vehicle. But few of these crashes
are 'caused' by speeding. Instead they are caused by a variety of factors, many
of which are associated with skills or attitude shortfalls. The modern figures
indicate those crashes where speeding may have contributed. (And, of course,
contribution is very far from an actual cause).

For years 'inappropriate speed' figures were added to 'exceeding the speed
limit' figures to give a higher 'composite' total. But inappropriate speed is a
driver quality issue, while exceeding the speed limit is a legal compliance
issue. They are chalk and cheese and should never be added together. See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/225

Even the 2% figure now available for drivers over 25 includes those where
'exceeding the speed limit' was coded as 'POSSIBLE' as well as those where it
was coded as 'VERY LIKELY' on the 'STATS19' forms. It follows that many of the
crashes within the 2% only had a confidence rating of 'possible'.

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

[1] Published figures at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 032102.htm
See section 2.5 which contains:

"In 2005, for the first time, the Department collected data on contributory
factors to road traffic accidents. Several of these factors are attributed to
drivers up to the age of 25 in much higher proportions of cases than for older
drivers. These factors were reported for the following proportion of drivers in
casualty accidents:

Exceeded the speed limit:

Driver 17-19:8%
Driver 17-25 6%
Driver 26+ 2%

[2] 'Vehicle Speeds in Great Britain':
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... lespeedsgb

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

With the government's admission that the police aren't performing as expected due to their target recording and the "Credit Crunch" I'm not surprised that they want to bury bad news.

All good for the cause though

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

I'm surprised that they haven't said "Speed cameras have done their work as only 2% of casualty accidents for people over 25 now involve speeding."

This would be par-for-the-course spinning.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

This is one of the strongest news stories I have ever worked on. I've been pushing it, but the more push the better. We need everyone to be talking about it, and I mean everyone.

The PR link is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/392

Can anyone with time please email the link or the PR to any possible individual contacts at any news organisations? Or pick up the phone and give them a ring.

We're in a narrow window where the story is 'picking up'. The more pickup the better. You can help.

If in doubt, just ring any news organisation, ask for the 'newsdesk' and tell them about it.

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

done radio solent
bob roberts @ the mirror
bournemouth echo
autotrader

via e-mails

_________________
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

Safe Speed issued the following further (follow-up) PR at 17:35

PR532: Speeding problem doesn't exist (And it never did)

news: for immediate release

Following Department for Transport figures reported earlier today by Safe Speed
for the first time [1], Safe Speed says that these figure prove that we have
never had a 'speeding problem'..

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "Recent road safety policy has
been founded on a gross misunderstanding of road safety fundamentals. We have
never had a national problem with speeding."

"The so called speeding problem never did exist. Department for Transport have
been chasing rainbows."

DfT have been claiming today that "Independent research shows that speed
cameras save 100 lives per year." They know this figure to be flawed and
repeating it in this context is nothing less than a fraud. Paul Smith
explained: "The claim of 100 lives saved each year comes from the '4th year
report' into the national speed camera programme. It's taken BEFORE the
correction has been applied for 'regression to the mean' benefit illusion',
which Appendix H (of the very same report) tells us is 75% of the benefit
claimed. So the estimate must be reduced to 25 lives saved per year. But this
'25 lives saved per year' takes no account of the 40 or so negative side
effects [2] on our road safety system which result directly and indirectly from
speed camera policy. DfT know this very well and their claim is a deliberate
fraud."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

PLEASE don't miss this news story. The NEW OFFICIAL figures have NEVER BEEN
REPORTED by the media.

[1] Safe Speed PR issued earlier with full references and links to DfT data:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/392


[2] Side effects report:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf

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

relayed to emap publications Company Car driver and Fleet News

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Beautifully written PRs, Paul.

Of course, this is nothing new to regular SafeSpeed readers, but the official recognition of the true figures (and, implicitly, the government deception in this matter) is dynamite. Top notch.

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

"relayed to emap publications Company Car driver and Fleet News"
Thats alot of the speed merchants then, this is a total red herring, any-one out using the roads on a daily basis will know that speed is a major factor in most accidents, the idiots who dogdge in and out of traffic are the same idiots that speed, cure the speed problem by REAl enforcement, IE More cameras, hidden and on motorways as well as b roads and the problem will lower.

Sell cars with speed limiters, or limit speeds at the roadside using technology and the problem wil lower.

Have a free for all and more deaths will ensue, KILL YOUR SPEED, YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!!

and have a nation of zombie drivers with their foot planted on the accelerator? - and that's assuming the technology works without a glitch


Been there, done that, it is failing!


The campaign is not calling for a free-for-all. I've already pointed many (probably you too) to the Safespeed manifesto which calls for properly set limits based on known and accepted principles (85th percentile guideline).

I really try to avoid these cut and paste responses but there is so much to criticise in this post that I must.


Absolutely no basis for this defamation.


No they won't and this is supported by evidence from many sources.


Just assertion with no evidence.


So, real enforcement, in your mind, equals cameras!! Oh, dear.


Thanks for the Government information posting.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Prove it. Dont just spout it. Back it up with some EVIDENCE!



Funny, ive seen lots of cops doing just that. One nearly totalled my brother on saturday doing the same thing.



Speed is only a problem when you make it one!
You place major importance on it when its a minor factor, even the dft now acknowledge it being so, therefore you have learned NOTHING!



Thats not been the experience tho! More cameras = more distraction, more chance of hitting one of them, more chances of the criminal driver escaping, more people DYING due to the concentration on this mindless moron policy. Youre not a MORON, or are you?



HELLO! CALLING THE IDIOT IN BOAT NUMBER 13??
Hasnt worked here so far and 10 years on from policy inception deaths are UP UP UP!
WHY? Cos your policy is WRONG! DOH!


Didnt happen in Montana, hasnt happened in Italy afaik (speed limit on autostrada UP to 93mph) dosent happen on derestricted autobahn.



All idiots say that. Because they fail to comprehend the issue.


This has been a DF MORON alert response. The danger has now passed, you may proceed as normal.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Ignore the trolls and remember the old adage:
"Don't confuse me with the facts when I've already made up my mind"

Greetings again "safety"man. Putting your keyboard into gear before engaging your brain again ? You are just waving your unsubstantiated prejudices around. Obviously you have not yet read company car driver before pontificating. Log onto http://www.companycardriver.co.uk/ . OK ? You can google for Fleet news to complete your research. You will find that these internet journals strongly promote the government line and have a handful of regular contributors who are spokespersons for safety compliance consulting firms who push compliance almost as heavily as Brake

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Anyone out looking at the sky on a daily basis can see quite clearly that the sun and stars orbit the earth!

Fortunately lay-observation does not trump science in our efforts to understand our world.

Speed is a factor in 100% of accidents. If nothing's moving, nothing will collide.

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Can't you read the sign - "Please don't feed the troll"