|Logical proof that speeding
does not kill in 99% of cases:
Out of 10,207 cases where cars use a free travelling speed of over 30mph AND had accidents with child pedestrians 10,100 survived. We know for sure that speeding didn't kill in all these cases where the children survived. In the remaining 107 it is possible that speeding killed. The 107 who tragically died are just 1% of the total.
|Add some detail, and draw some useful
We know from research that at 30mph impact speed some 50% are killed, while at 40mph impact 90% are killed. It follows that the impact speeds cannot have been anywhere near the "over 30mph free travelling speed" in the 10,100 cases where the child pedestrians survived. Even at an impact speed of 20mph we would expect 10% to die, which would have meant 1,000 deaths.
By assuming that all the child pedestrians were killed by speeding drivers we ensure that we are considering worst case figures. With any other assumption our case would improve.
So if 99% were not killed by cars which free travel above 30mph, then something else must have saved 99% from death. With a moment's thought you'll probably agree that they were saved by drivers reducing speed before impact. They do this in two important ways:
So we now know that a maximum of 1% were possibly killed by the effects of drivers exceeding a speed limit and 99% were saved by the effects of driver behaviour.
But wait a minute... If we saved 99% by driver behaviour, why can't we save the other 1% by improving driver behaviour? It should be obvious that improved driver behaviour, especially in the area of slow down when necessary is the only real way to make a difference to the outcomes.
|Free travelling speed, speed
enforcement and impact speed.
We've seen that despite high free travelling speeds on UK roads, with 65% of drivers in excess of the 30mph speed limit, only a very tiny percentage of children involved in incidents with drivers who free travel at speeds in excess of the speed limit are killed. If impact speed could be implied from free travelling speed we would have many more child pedestrians killed.
But speed enforcement is only aimed at free travelling speeds, so will never have a substantial effect on these accident outcomes.
|Now let's make some sensible guesses
and get a bit more realistic.
And the whole nonsense of speed kills is clearly exposed. Quite why anyone would wish to claim that the remaining 0.08% might have been killed by speeding drivers is anyone's guess. It obviously would not be realistic to do so without some very unusual and compelling evidence.
The five times near miss to accident ratio is an estimate from an AA report circa 1974
The "half of accidents unreported" estimate comes from a DETR report circa 1996
The speed fatality relationships were published in "New directions in speed management". click here
We claim that these figures show without room for reasonable doubt, that drivers save the lives of child pedestrians by "safe speed" behaviour. In a probable 99.92% of cases safe speed saved the children. It's possible that in the remaining 0.08% of cases speed enforcement lowering vehicle speeds might save some.
So what do we want?
Safe Speed encourages comments, further information and participation from our visitors. See our (forums).
Read about our comments policy (here).
Created December 2002. Last update 7/03/2004