Safe Speed Forums

The above claim has been made here, based on this table:



table 4i RCGB2007_screenshot.PNG
table 4i RCGB2007_screenshot.PNG (31.15 KiB) Viewed 130 times

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the recorded stats. The table does not even mention drunk drivers, drugged drivers, drivers on mobiles, speeding drivers etc etc.

See here:

Contributory factors to road accidents

The article describes the scope and limitations of the contributory factors information recently added to the national road accident reporting system, and presents results from the third year of collection, including:

* Failed to look properly was the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 35 per cent of all accidents. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 33 per cent of fatal accidents.
* Younger and older drivers are more likely to have a contributory factor recorded than drivers aged 25-69. Younger drivers, particularly males, are more likely to have factors related to speed and behaviour, whereas older drivers are more likely to have factors related to vision and judgement.


http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... itain20071

A much used statistic in Road Safety in that driver error is a factor in 95% of road accidents, whether by failing to notice a hazard, not reacting in time, or simply adopting a dangerous behaviour.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/ ... idents.htm



Now, were a similar table to be posted that assigned, based on partial data quoted out of context, blame to motorists driving above the speed limit there would be howls of protest here.

Double standards, anyone?

This isn't just naughty, misuse of statistics are commonplace here (see the motorway argument) but, given the subject matter, it is unbelievably distasteful.

What exactly is your point here? You have provided several links to prove that various stats are correct, but then you seem to dispute them.
Please clerify what you are saying? Or are you trying to extract non-existant arguments from the safespeed website by tacit implication?

I dispute the claim in the thread header, as should be obvious. That's why it's in parenthesis, followed by the word 'claim'.

A table that records NOTHING other than pedestrian behaviour is no more an accurate way of apportioning blame than a table exclusively dealing with drivers who are drunk. Using Steve's logic this would ascribe 100% of fatal RTAs to drunk drivers.

Mendacious and misleading.

Where is the claim? You didn't put links on the first items

Apologies:

Here's the motorway argument:

Maybe the fact that Motorways are the safest roads and urban roads are the least safe (where the speeds are , if I'm not mistaken, slowest), that this shows that pedestrians are the group where we need to educate and not motorists

In all seriousness, nobody can be this stupid, can they? Roads where traffic moves at speed and where there are no pedestrians offered as evidence that driving at speeds near pedestrians is safe and any collision would be down to lack of education on the pedestrian's part? I mean, really?

And:

Pedestrians are at fault for 74% of pedestrian casualties,

Both claims made here:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19799&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40


The question is only partly whether it is possible for people to seriously be so misguided, it is also whether similar dishonesty in apportioning blame to speeding drivers would be met with equanimity here.

I've read all the way through the thread, no claim is made that 74% of pedestrians are at fault.

The motorway argument is a strawman on your part, but you knew that.

Scratches head

Odin, did you read the link?

1/

Steve said

" Pedestrians are at fault for 74% of pedestrian casualties'

2/

Graball said low pedestrian casualties on motorways means that pedestrians need to be educated. A claim repeated by Steve when he claimed "motorways are the safest roads".

Both claims made here:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19799&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40


Both direct quotes.

Now, citing roads with, by definition, limited vulnerable road user interaction as 'evidence' that similar speeds where there ARE pedestrians must be safe, and that any consequent collision must be the fault of the pedestrian is a quantum leap in logic and laughably inane, as well as dangerous.

Since you are well aware that you are extracting information that was neither stated or implied - this thread looks finished to me.

I think this table explains how and why pedestrians are significant contributors to thier own demise.
An accident can have multiple contributing factors. IE: If a pedestrian crosses the road without looking and is hit by a driver who has had a drink. The primary cause is still that the pedestrian did not look.

If a driver hits a pedestrian on tha pavement or crossiong on a crossing due to drink the primary cause is the drink driving.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/excel/173025/2214 ... Table4e!A1

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... itain20071

We have allways run a policy on this site that if claims or data are incorrect they will be corrected.

_________________
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

It is a direct lift/screenshot from the UK's most comprehensive and quite recent casualty report - it cannot be a misrepresentation. 100 – 26 = 74, no problems there!

If a road user group is at fault then they are at fault; had they not have made those errors then the great majority of those accidents (probably 95%) would not have occurred. It is true there may be other convoluted contributory factors, such as drink drivers, but if they're within the speed limits then the pedestrian who fails to look properly is still at fault (as is the drink driver, I'm not saying they're not at fault). Had the pedestrian looked properly they would have avoided being in the path of said drink driver who is acting in a predictable manner (who is still at fault if they have impaired awareness of the proximity and/or response time to evade).

I suspect you've misunderstood what I said about being at fault, I didn't say these at-fault pedestrians were the only faulty party involved.

If you can prove otherwise, now is the time; otherwise accept the known and irrefutable DfT fact that 74% of all pedestrians casualties do indeed contribute to their own accidents.

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

Steve, look at the graph.

It is a recording of PEDESTRIAN activities that led to an accident. The table doesn't even record any other influences. To take the graph at face value you would have to assert that drunk/drugged/speeding/distracted or speeding drivers do not exist!

Now, a table dealing exclusively with accidents caused by drunk drivers would no more reflect a fair representation of ALL accidents than your table does!

There are various reasons that why the pedestrian accidents takes place. In few a cases it is because of the fault of the pedestrian, for instance, a kid might run out straightforwardly in front of the car. If the vehicle is too close to stop, accident probably may happen. Nevertheless, in case if the vehicle was gearing during the impact then it may be classed as driver’s fault, though if the pedestrian have run out or walked in front of vehicle. In maximum numbers of cases, the pedestrian is not at fault but the cause of negligence of the driver. The negligence includes:

* The driver is pre-occupied or not paying attention
* The driver is not following the speed limit on a particular road
* The driver is unable to stop at the pedestrian crossing
* The driver is not able to pay attention while driving
* The driver is found of consuming alcohol or drugs

To post a table that EXCLUDES all these possibilities is disingenuous, that's why the ROSPA data (that 95% of RTAs involve DRIVER error) is more robust, since it includes the factors you have excluded!

The legal profession disagree with you:

In 2005 more than 33,000 pedestrians were injured in road traffic accidents, most of them through no fault of their own. Drivers must drive carefully and thoughtfully and maintain a proper lookout for potential hazards and danger to themselves and others on the road. "I didn't see you" is not a valid excuse.

http://www.accidentcompensation4u.com/p ... tion-claim

ROSPA disagree with you, see above.

Case law disagrees with you:

"[The case creates] an effective presumption that the negligent car
driver (or perhaps the driver of the larger, more dangerous vehicle,
where there is a collision between two road vehicles) will normally be
required to bear the greater responsibility than the negligent pedestrian
with whom he is in collision."

This doesn't seem exceptionable to me.

While a decision to refuse permission to appeal such as Parkinson is
not authority for any general proposition, the Court of Appeal in Lunt v
Khelifa [2002] EWCA civ 801 and Eagle v Chambers [2003] EWCA civ 1107 have
come close to articulating a doctrine that the car diver will generally be
held to bear the majority of blame in running down cases. In Eagle, the
Court allowed an appeal by a Claimant pedestrian against an apportionment of
liability that had been put at 60/40 against her, substituting it for 60/40
in her favour. The Court reiterated the need for a judge assessing
contributory negligence to look to the blameworthiness of the parties as
well as to the 'causative potency' (or 'destructive disparity') of the
parties. Hale LJ (giving the judgment of the Court) stated:

"A car can do so much more damage to a person than a person can
usually do to a car. [] The potential destructive disparity between the
parties can readily be taken into account as an aspect of blameworthiness.
[] It is rare indeed for a pedestrian to be found more responsible than a
driver unless the pedestrian has moved into the path of an oncoming
vehicle." She went on to cite Latham LJ in Lunt (above), who had stated:
"the court has consistently imposed upon the drivers of cars a high burden
to reflect the fact that the car is potentially a dangerous weapon."


In Parkinson the Claimant was under the influence of alcohol and had
stepped out from behind a parked taxi into the path of the Defendant's
police car, which he should have seen. The Defendant's driver was driving at
40mph (above the speed limit) in a built up area at night and ought to have
anticipated that pedestrians might emerge from behind the parked taxi. The
trial judge held the Defendant 65% responsible and the Claimant 35%
responsible. No doubt this was a nasty shock for the Defendant and his legal
advisors. Many common lawyers would disagree with that apportionment. The
reasoning of the trial judge was somewhat unusual. He found that the
Claimant's most serious injuries would have been avoided had the Defendant's
vehicle been driven at a reasonable speed and that the Defendant's
negligence therefore had a greater 'relative causative potency' than that of
the Claimant, so that the Defendant should bear the greater degree of
liability.

Note, in the Parkinson example the driver's culpability would not even be recorded in your graph.

See what I mean about dishonesty?

You should note, too, that blame is not routinely apportion in DfT reports since it is such a problematic area. For that reason alone, quite aprt from your selective quoting, the graph you cite is useless at apportioning blame accurately.

No it doesn't. You cannot rebut my reasoning that the great majority of pedestrian accidents would be avoided had the pedestrian applied the relevant road craft, such as looking properly.

This works both ways. Remember the 3% of accidents where exceeding the limits was a contributory factor - all of a sudden you have put that into a perspective you simply won't defend.


Where a driver is negligent when a pedestrian run out in their path, they are both at fault. Had the pedestrian looked and not run into the path, the accident would have been avoided, even if the driver was somehow negligent. Therefore, the pedestrian through fault of their own, contributed to the accident occurring. This is simple logic.


What is 'maximum'? 24%? The sad and irrefutable fact is, the pedestrian is still at fault for 'running out straightforwardly in front of the car' even if the driver was gearing at the time. Can you really not grasp this simple, and as yet unrefuted, fact?
The pedestrian would very likely be at fault should a collision occur if the driver was acting in an predictable manner (such as not exceeding the speed limit by a significant amount, but we already know that such a small portion of the accident pie, it won't make any significant dent on pedestrian the number casualties).


I trust the raw DfT figures more than I trust ambulance chasers (not that I would call them part of the legal profession).


That may be, but it doesn't detract from the fact the pedestrian fault was a contributory factor and if that factor is eliminated the accident would very likely not have happened. You have shown that case law agrees that the at fault pedestrian is still at fault, instead they have a slightly reduced responsibility; you’ve confused responsibility with contributory factors.

It also doesn't detract from my repeated assertions that pedestrian education and parental responsibility is the best way to avoid pedestrian accidents. Personally, I would heap as much responsibility on negligent parents (of injured/killed minors) as negligent car drivers.


Actually it is perfect for apportioning contributory factors (or blame as you might call it), that's the point of it; it is a summary of the conclusions of professional accident investigators for each reported collision (do you know what Stats19 is). What it doesn't show is responsibility.

For all your efforts, you have still failed to disprove "74% of all pedestrians casualties do indeed contribute to their own accidents."

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

Steve, you're flogging a dead horse.

In 2003 3,453 pedestrians were injured by drivers whose cars mounted the pavement. It is difficult to see how the pedestrian could possibly be at fault in those instances, and these incidents are not even recorded on your graph!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... column_254

533 pedestrians were killed or seriously injured on zebra crossings:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 044335.stm

Again it's difficult to follow your argument that three quarters of these were the pedestrian's fault!

Surely now you can see what I mean?

You've lifted a partial report that has given you a misleading set of data.

For instance, look at the entry for 'failed to look'. Now, if a pedestrian sees the road is clear, uses a zebra crossing and is mown down by a drunk, speeding driver who comes around the corner at 80mph then your graph records the blame as being apportioned to the pedestrian!

You are selectively extracting data to blame a sub set of road users and it's pretty distasteful.

Would you like more flogging? Have some more:


The graph does show that 26% of pedestrian casualties don't have the pedestrian at fault. Did you understand that table at all?
Oh, and you're quoting 2003 figures. Try again for 2007!


For "failure to look"? oh wait there';s more, "Pedestrian wong use of pedestrian crossing facility". That's also in table the table I gave - how on earth did you miss that? Your blatent misunderstanding of this very simple table is becoming ever visible.

Why are you quoting data from 1961, 48 years ago? (when the rate of pedestrian fatalities were higher) Now who is looking desperate?


Nope, that's not failure to look properly (as much as you might try to misrepresent it).
As I have already said (and you have conveniently forgotten) that pedestrians won't be at fault when colliding with drivers who are unreasonably above the limit because the event isn't reasonably predictable.

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

You have one, selected graph that offers partial information on blame- a factor not ordinarily recorded by DFT.

You've taken an incomplete graph and built a towering house of cards upon it, that's why you are unable to find a single source that backs up what you are saying.

For instance:

Most fatal road accidents due to driver error

[Posted: Wed 26/11/2003]

By Deborah Condon

Driver error was responsible for 86% of all fatal road accidents in Ireland last year, new figures from the National Roads Authority (NRA) have shown.

According to the authority, the biggest cause of fatal accidents was due to the driver veering onto the wrong side of the road (39%), while a further 20% of accidents were due to the driver exceeding the speed limit.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=5419

Now, you have a report that says pedestrians are at fault in 74% of pedestrian injuries. I've explained that the report doesn't even allow for other factors.

Is your contention honestly that you are right and all other reports are wrong?

A much used statistic in Road Safety in that driver error is a factor in 95% of road accidents, whether by failing to notice a hazard, not reacting in time, or simply adopting a dangerous behaviour.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/ ... idents.htm

You are right and ROSPA are wrong?

We know from police investigations in to accidents that some are caused by defective vehicles, in particular, tyres, lights and brakes, however the majority of accidents are caused by driver error and in particular young males between the age of 17 and 25.

http://www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk/ ... 5113530.jp

Can you find one, single, solitary source that backs up your view without relying on the partial data you place all your argument on?

What do driving agencies say?

90% of all accidents are the result of driver error. They don?t happen by chance; they are the consequences of unsafe driving practices.

http://www.allmotortraining.co.uk/Fleetdrivers.htm

Again, a wide discrepency between what you claim and what accredited driving instructors state.

Here's a sourced quote:

Roger Vincent of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said: "Obviously with all these accidents happening on the A23, including the two fatal ones at virtually the same spot at Braypool, experts with local knowledge need to have a look at the road.

"Ninety-five per cent of road accidents are caused by driver error and it is vital that motorists drive more carefully and safely when they drive down to Brighton and take more time for their journeys."

http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2005/5/30/102243.html

What qualifications do you have in statistical analyses that would lend weight to your belief that you know better than Mr Vincent, a professional safety adviser please?

DfT RCGB2007.
Is this not the ultimate source of this type of raw information, or can you give me something better?


I agree, but it doesn't detract from the fact that most pedestrian collisions have the pedestrian at fault.
You still don't seem to be able to grasp this extremely simple concept.


It doesn't matter, they are still at fault because they "failed to look properly" and other given reasons.


Nope. Apart from the "excessive speed is a factor in one third" issue, all are consistent with my arguments.

You still have not disproven the fact '74% of pedestrian casualties have the pedestrian at fault' (be it joint fault), and that elimination of these pedestrian error factors would eliminate the great majority of pedestrian accidents.

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

I picked my county as an illustrative example:

Factors in Northamptonshire RTAs.

o Driver Error - 47% of factors and featured in 85%

of accidents

o Excess/

Inappropriate Speed - 24% of factors and featured in 44%

of the accidents

3 other categories stand out during 2006

o Inappropriate

Overtaking - which featured in 15% of accidents

o Intoxicated road users - which featured in 11% of accidents

(Drivers & pedestrians)

o Pedestrian misjudgement - which featured in 9% of accidents


Nationwide data, from the insurance industry:

Failure by drivers to look properly is the single biggest contributory factor when it comes to road accidents in the UK, a new Government report revealed this week.

In the first report of its kind, the Department for Transport (DfT) also highlighted how "some kind of driver or rider error or reaction" resulted in five out of six accidents. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35% of road deaths.

Covering most accidents that took place in 2005, the report said that exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor in only 5% of accidents, and going too fast for the conditions was a contributory factor in 10% of accidents.

However, speed was a factor in 26% of all fatal accidents.

http://www.nurs.co.uk/news/2006/09/29/b ... dentified/

Your claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny Steve.

It is replicated nowhere.

It is refuted by the insurance industry, the police, driving training agencies, the government, and ROSPA.

Find a single, accredited source that backs up your claim and you'll be rather more convincing.

Steve, take this report:

http://www.gmcc.org.uk/main/wp-content/ ... 02poth.pdf

where is published the data, obtained from the DfT, that breaks down pedestrian fatalities for the period 1998 to 2005, according to what part of the road or pavement they were killed on and whether a motor vehicle or pedal cycle was involved.

In those 8 years, a total of 22 pedestrians were killed when collided by a cyclist, but only 5 of them were somewhere a pedestrian might expect to be safe from traffic danger, i.e. the footway, verge or central refuge, or on a pedestrian crossing, including the zig-zag marked approaches and exits. So a pedestrian gets killed in a place of safety by a cyclist, about once in two years. Note that the DfT data does not differentiate those pavements that are legitimately shared with cyclists, so it's likely that some of the pavement deaths involved a cyclist who had a right to be there.

If we do the same exercise for motor vehicles, we find that of the 6318 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles, 1009 were in a place of safety.

So a careful pedestrian, who does not step into the road without looking first and uses pedestrian crossings where possible, is 200 times more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than a cyclist, when in a place they would expect to be safe from such an event.


What's 1009 as a percentage of 6318 Steve?


I've no idea, but it certainly is not 74%.

Sample size = 1 fallacy


Speed is not implicated (i.e. not a contributory factor) in all those 26% of all fatal accidents.


t does perfectly, your merely stating so doesn't disprove it.


Nor does it need to be. As far as anyone can be concerned I have quoted from the master analysis. Perhaps it isn’t quoted elsewhere else because to do so would greatly undermine the government’s position on road safety (as well as creating far more disrespect for the SCPs). Perhaps people, people like you, just don't understand it (or have never read it).


So where exactly do any of these bodies state or show that 'the great majority of pedestrian accidents do not have the pedestrian at fault'? Please link and quote.


Is RCGB2007 not good enough for you? If so why not?
What can you find that trumps the raw data contained within?

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

so stepping into a road in front of a joyrider/boyracer who is going way above the limit, is a place of safety?
I think you've got yourself confused by assuming all of the other 26% who aren't at fault were not on the road.

My assertions (and the DfT analysis) still stands up.

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