Safe Speed Forums

Hi all,

The new DfT report about driver sleepiness is here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 032139.pdf

This is from page 33:



Examine the text and the table and try to determine the proportion of "excessive and inappropriate speed" accidents.

What are they up to this time? Exactly?

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

Less than 1% attributed to speed and no clarification as to whether the vehicles were above the speed limit.

A few less speed cameras, and a few more traffic cops

However that is far too expensive, so it will be another few hundred cameras.

_________________
Steve

Hmm

Doesn't make sense.

321 shunts caused by excessive speed?

Just 12 accidents caused by excessive speed inappropriate for conditions?

Or a total of 333?

I can't actually remember seeing "shunt" used as official terminology before, perhaps they would be kind enough to furnish us with a definition...

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

I can only think they mean drivers running into the back of someone else, which is nothing to do with speed.

They have a total of 68 blamed on weather

How can they blame weather, this is driving without due care & attention with pernitting weather conditions.

How does that go

Sorry officer, i crashed because it was raining

Then 57 other

57 acts of god, maybe

Good to see, the DFT have done a thorough investigation into the root cause of accidents, NOT.

Insecure loads are treated the same as debris on the motorway

Insecure loads is complete negligence

As for debris, if they put some traffic police back on the road, maybe they would see the debris and clear them away.

_________________
Steve

Why does it not make sense.

All traffic on a motorway travells in the same direction (or should do anyway ) A shunt (running into the back of the vehicle in front, for JT) is bound to be the most common of motorway accidents as well as dual carriageways for that matter.

It may surprise you but it happens to be true. Why deny it? Is it because it indicates that the driver at fault is unable to stop and hence is perhaps travelling too fast?

_________________
It's Champion Man

Certainly the driver at fault is the one who was unable to stop. But on the motorways near me this will most likely be due to all the silly sods who drive too damn close to the car in front. I grant you, when it happens in the rain, yes, probably driving too fast as well I hate the local M-ways in bad weather as too few adjust speed from dry and sunny to pissing wet and murky. For that matter too few bother to adjust the gap to the next vehicle much in bad weather as well, so that will still play a part. It all boils down to just plain old driver inattention, and to be blunt, negligence. I really think there are people out there who think the two second rule is about how long you're allowed to take your eyes off the road when changing the CD.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

You may well be right. It is annoying that something as simple as the 2 sec rule is blatently ignored while being potentially very effective at making motorways safer.

_________________
It's Champion Man

The vast majority of shunts are caused by inattention. I'm sure that following too close is a frequent secondary cause.

"Too fast" is almost inconceivable as a real cause because there's almost always braking time available, if only they bother to look where they are going.

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

Something rather bothersome is that quite a few sleep related crashes will also be shunts. On that basis, how are we supposed to interprit the figures?

Are we to assume that sleep related shunts have been moved to the "sleep" catagory? I'm not that keen on assuming...

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

I presume that you're annoyed with drivers for ignoring it?

I'm annoyed with government (little g - "government" in the widest sense) for ignoring it.

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

Having sat in many a tailback on many roads, not just motorways, it is very common to be travelling at speeds less than 10mph, yet in any long tailback, there are often secondary "shunts", that is to say, secondary to the cause of the tailback.

Please explain how these "shunts" are caused by "travelling too fast " speed.
These are simply caused by travelling tooo close, accelerating to quickly and not having the ability to stop soon enough, also by over-anticipating the onward movement of the traffic in front.
You also get the loony who stops suddenly to have a look at the incident causing the tailback.
You also get "shunts" on the opposite carriageway, the dreaded rubberneckers craning their heads to look over the armco and instead swerving into the armco.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

The fault is a result of the driver NOT paying due care & attention or traveling too close.

The speed has no effect, M/ways supply extremly good hazard perception.

It is when the driver does not spot the hazard ahead, when they run into the back of another vehicle.

This type of accident has NO link to speed

Traveling too close to react to hazards, yes

Not spotting the hazards as they arise, yes.

You are 10 times more likely to have an accident on thge motorway in a LGV (HGV) than any other form of transport.

Yet, only LGV's are restricted to 56 MPH, which clearly shows speed has no effect.

_________________
Steve

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:00:21 +0000
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: DfT DfT <road.safety@dft.gsi.gov.uk>

Hi,

Please service the following request made under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

I wish to fully understand the missing numbers, combined numbers and peculiar
column formatting in the following report:

"Road Safety Research Report No. 52 Sleep-Related Crashes on Sections of
Different Road Types in the UK
(1995–2001)"

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 032139.pdf

The following tables are affected:

Table 3.1
Table A2
Table A5
Table A8
Table A10
Table B2
Table B5
Table C2
Table C5
Table D2

The following figures are combined and/or confused:

* Excessive or inappropriate speed
* Shunts
* Other
* (including) too fast for road or weather conditions

I suspect that you will find clear tables in a pre-release copy of the report.
Supplying a pre-release copy of the report with clear figures will discharge
your obligations under this request.

The address for correspondence is:
Trace House,
Clay of Allan
Fearn near Tain
Ross-shire
Scotland
IV20 1RR

Please acknowledge this Freedom of Information request.
------------------------------------------------------

Ooops.

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

Highest number of m/way accidents, involve trucks, which are all restricted below the speed limit



I shunt is the result of a driver not driving with due care and attention, has nothing to do with speed



Not a very clever conclusion

But then did we really expect one.

Maybe if the driver was not looking at the speedo due to the impending revenue camera, they would of been paying attention to the approaching hazards , and braked in time to avoid the conjestion:!:

_________________
Steve

If a driver fails to notice the change ahead, they are guilty of driving without due, care & attention, not speeding.

_________________
Steve

The shunts that I have seen on motorways have all happened in busy traffic travelling at less then the speed limit.

I have yet to see one on a light-medium trafficed motorway where most of the cars are travelling between 70-90mph, which is where some of the less scrupulous camera operators go for easy pickings!

I'd agree that shunts are caused by lack of attention, as one car could only go into the back of another because they hadn't realised in time that the car in front had slowed suddenly. However as well as leaving a sufficient gap between vehicles, speed is a factor.

If you had 2 cars in one lane at 50 mph and 10 metres apart and the front one suddenly braked, then there'd be enough time for the car behind to slow. If they were at 80 mph then there might not be enough of a gap to prevent a shunt.

Just as a slight aside, there's also the domino effect, where one car in front touches their brakes for a second, the car behind hits the brakes for 2-3 seconds, the car behind that for 4-5 seconds or more, and then the car behind them, seeing 2 or 3 cars in front suddenly put on their brake lights really hits the brakes and so on. I've seen this happen on the slope up northbound to J9 on the M1 - it was like seeing the tide suddenly rush in, with an accelerating spread of red lights. Often I suspect a shunt would happen 4 or 5 cars back in that sort of situation.

So yes, it does mean drivers have to be intelligent enough to realise at higher speeds you have to leave a bigger gap. It's not just speed in isolation that's the problem, it's a combination of things.

People forget that being able to drive is a privilege, not an automatic right, but the fundamental issues of bad driving in any form unfortunately are directly related to the wider social problems in the UK.

For example, I know some people have a go at BMW drivers. It's not the BMW that has the problem, it's the idiot inside. If they were in a Reliant Robin, they can still cut you up.

So the Government to produce statistics such as these, highlighting shunts at speed are continuing to use speed cameras as a cheap & simple way to try and tackle a much bigger problem, which to be honest, can't be addressed. It'll help a bit, but it's not the whole answer.

This is true, but it's not very realistic - we should measure the gap in time (which is what drivers do naturally anyway). There is little need to increase the gap in time with speed.

(Although the ultimate effect of differential in braking performance does become more significant as speed increases leading to a relatively small factor indicating that the time gap should increase somewhat with increasing speed.)

The recommended two second gap provides time to react at any speed so long as braking performance is matched.

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

Only if not compensated for by substatnailly increased following distance.

Let's examine the science here. 50 mph = 24.4 yards (23 m) per sec. I personally think the gap left is insufficient - and would be happier with 2 sec at 50 mph - 45m. Yes on a dry road with good concentration you could pull up - but to do so you would have no "zone of time" to forewarn anyone behind you of the impending calamity.

80 mph = 39 yds (37+ m) per sec. If you are still following at 30m, you have a time zone of only just over 3/4 sec. You are an accident waiting to happen. At higher speeds, the two-second rule is inadequate as braking distance goes up with the square law of the distance or, more importantly, the time taken to stop goes up aproximately linealrly with speed. I would go for 120 - 150 yards at 80 mph. Any closer is inviting heart-throbbing moments at best.

Agreed - but it is not absolute speed that precipitates the domino effect, it is people following too close for the speed at which they are travelling.

Agreed.

I think a Reliant Robin would have a job cutting me up on the motorway

Oh yes ity can - but not with cameras. There is much material on here to educate drivers. Education and anticipation are the two keys to avoiding an accident.

If by "it" you mean cameras... no it won't. They cost lives. They may not increase accident numbers but by heck they do increase the severity of some accidents by their distraction factor.

Edited to add that my post was being composed without knowledge of or reference to Paul's 2 minutes above.