Food for thought.

Dashik · 24 Jun 2007 at 12:03

Here's some figures form an ADI site that you might find interesting, particularly the speeders

Figures from Devon Drivers Centre

CRASHES:
95% of crashes are caused by human error. Drivers who drive too fast are 3-5 times more at risk than those who don’t.
Where crashes happen nationally - motorway 5%
Rural 27%
Urban 68%

THE COST:
Killed 3,247 £4.85 billion
Seriously injured 28,913 £5.05 billion
Slightly injured 181,870 £3.19 billion
Damage only 3.2m £5.01 billion

DEVON FIGURES FOR 2005:
Deaths 47
Seriously injured 272
Slightly injured on all road types 3318

Where excessive speed responsible –
38% of deaths
31% of seriously injured
19% of slightly injured

Value of preventing 1 fatal RTC is approx £1.6m.

Every £1 spent on camera enforcement is £5 saved on attendance by the emergency services at RTCs.

PEDESTRIANS:
At 20mph pedestrian hit by car stands 10% chance of dying
At 30mph 50% chance
At 40mph 90% chance

At the point where a car would have stopped if travelling at 30mph –
at 32mph impact speed will be 11+ mph
at 35mph impact speed will be 18+ mph
at 40mph impact speed will be 26+ mph
N.B. vehicles with ABS take longer to stop.

Energy = ½mass x velocity²
E = ½ x 1 ton x 20mph² = 200
E = ½ x 1 ton x 40mph² = 800

If speed is doubled, braking distance is quadrupled - e.g. 20mph, braking distance 6m; 40mph, braking distance 24m

While smoking costs the NHS 1.5 Billion per year dont you think that someone has their priorities wrong???
_________________

Berger · 24 Jun 2007 at 13:27

So excessive speed only accounts for ~30% of accidents in total.

And this is only excessive speed,.....

A percentage of speeders/accident ratio would be better but its a statistic you couldnt get.

At the point where a car would have stopped if travelling at 30mph –
at 32mph impact speed will be 11+ mph

Find it hard to believe that 2mph makes that much difference tbh, road conditions, brakes, tyres and level of attention the driver is paying will be more important.

Sagalout · 24 Jun 2007 at 15:19

Dashik said:
While smoking costs the NHS 1.5 Billion per year dont you think that someone has their priorities wrong???
_________________

Yes, they are doing little to address the reasons for the other 70% of accidents!

Its also not clear where the speed definition is - ie are they talking about breaking speed limits or driving at the wrong speed for the conditions. Two very different things I'm sure you'll agree. eg 90mph on a motorway is much safer than 50mph on some NSL stretches.

georges · 24 Jun 2007 at 15:25

Another way of putting that would be 70% of accidents are caused by people driving at, or under, the limit. Just puts a different spin on it.

As for smoking, why does everyone need to bring this up when theres a "Cost" thing. Smoking is not necessary, generalising, driving is.

Vertigo · 24 Jun 2007 at 15:25

What a complete load of drivel.

(Not an attack on the OP but the morons who conjure up this rubbish)

mr jamez · 24 Jun 2007 at 15:30

Dashik said:
Every £1 spent on camera enforcement is £5 saved on attendance by the emergency services at RTCs.

Which would mean something if accidents and deaths were actualy going down. Oh and 30% of accidents caused by excessive speed is utter rubbish.

Tom|Nbk · 24 Jun 2007 at 15:35

Vertigo1 said:
What a complete load of drivel.

(Not an attack on the OP but the morons who conjure up this rubbish)

It's from an ADI site most of the ADI's I've met are full of drivel anyway

, the majority are very good though, but I've met some horrendous ADI's not a dig at the OP im sure hes very good from what ive seen on here

lordrobs · 24 Jun 2007 at 15:38

Drivers who drive too fast are 3-5 times more at risk than those who don’t.

Does that mean drive too fast for the conditions or drive over the limit as they are two very different things.

Sagalout · 24 Jun 2007 at 15:47

http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/contributoryfactorstoroadacc1802

Page 10.

Exceeding speed limits were contributory to 3% and 4% of cars and bikes accidents respectively. Going too fast for the conditions was 7% and 9%.

Now I dont know about you but I've never yet seen a camera that detects vehicles going too fast for the conditions, yet its causes twice the accidents, although poor observation blitzes all speed related accidents.

PMKeates · 24 Jun 2007 at 16:05

Sagalout said:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/contributoryfactorstoroadacc1802

Those figures are, surprisingly, more "reasonable". It'd be interesting to know how those ADI folk came up with their stats.

Also the braking distance thing really isn't that simple. There are many different factors involved at lower speeds versus higher speeds. The ABS thing is a little bit too technical as well - on our roads day-to-day, the cars with ABS are stopping faster than those without. ABS is a legal requirement for most cars now, and I'd like to see ESC follow. I can think of four accidents off the top of my head that ABS/ESC would have either completely prevented or significantly reduced the impact speed of.

andi · 24 Jun 2007 at 16:30

Dashik said:
Every £1 spent on camera enforcement is £5 saved on attendance by the emergency services at RTCs.

Which is only true if cameras reduce accidents, which they don't..

sablabra · 24 Jun 2007 at 16:48

andi said:
Which is only true if cameras reduce accidents, which they don't..

It's a great source for incomes though

[TW]Fox · 24 Jun 2007 at 17:31

If you go straight on at an icy corner at 50mph on an NSL road, excessive speed is to blame.

You are not speeding a speed camera would not have prevented your accident.

gareth.e · 24 Jun 2007 at 19:29

[TW]Fox said:
If you go straight on at an icy corner at 50mph on an NSL road, excessive speed is to blame.

You are not speeding a speed camera would not have prevented your accident.

quoted for truth.

Entai · 24 Jun 2007 at 22:07

PMKeates said:
Also the braking distance thing really isn't that simple. There are many different factors involved at lower speeds versus higher speeds. The ABS thing is a little bit too technical as well - on our roads day-to-day, the cars with ABS are stopping faster than those without. ABS is a legal requirement for most cars now, and I'd like to see ESC follow. I can think of four accidents off the top of my head that ABS/ESC would have either completely prevented or significantly reduced the impact speed of.

No offence intended but that is absolute bull.

It is a proven FACT that a car equiped with and using ABS always in all conditions will stop in a longer distance than the exact same car not equiped with ABS.

This is mainly due to the fact that 99% of people who drive cars have no idea what ABS is or how to use it correctly.

Dashik · 24 Jun 2007 at 22:40

Tom|Nbk said:
It's from an ADI site most of the ADI's I've met are full of drivel anyway , the majority are very good though, but I've met some horrendous ADI's not a dig at the OP im sure hes very good from what ive seen on here

I'll Take that as a complement as I'm sure it was

. As I said just a repost from the the I use.

Dashik · 24 Jun 2007 at 22:43

PMKeates said:
Those figures are, surprisingly, more "reasonable". It'd be interesting to know how those ADI folk came up with their stats.

From the Devon Drivers center whoever they are