³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

How many of the speed related deaths are due to speeds in excess of the speed limit? I believe that the greatest contribution to road safety would be the fitting of 70 mph speed limiters to all cars followed by fitting satelite controlled speed restricters to all new cars.
On the whole drivers regularily break the speed limits and so compliance with the limits should be taken out of their hands.

#1. At 6:05pm on 16 Dec 2009, Peter Lane wrote:

"How many of the speed related deaths are due to speeds in excess of the speed limit? I believe that the greatest contribution to road safety would be the fitting of 70 mph speed limiters to all cars followed by fitting satelite controlled speed restricters to all new cars.
On the whole drivers regularily break the speed limits and so compliance with the limits should be taken out of their hands."

I suspect that5 this suggestion comes from either a non driver or one with little experience, how many accidents will be caused because a driver will not be able to avoid an accident due to not being able to accelerate away from someone else causing a conflicting manoeuvre if they are already travelling at or near the relevant speed limit - something that the police, whilst not condoning, understands when it occurs.

The above suggestion @ #1 is, IMO, would be even more dangerous than habitual 'speeders'. Oh, and before you ask, not I'm not, seen and helped clear up far to m,any such accidents to be a silly billy...

Dear Peter Lane,

That is the single stupidest thing I have ever heard, for the reasons eloquently elaborated by Boilerplated!

And interestingly when the speed limit in the US went up, accidents went down, because when speeds are lowered people simply tune out.

But then I guess you don't drive so you don't care. You want us all to kill ourselves to make space for you on your bike/train delete as appropriate.

Just looked up one specific accident, which co-coincidently I knew of both the victim and the LGV driver (and thus know the actual cause of the accident);

8:20, Thursday, 31 July 2003
Fatalities: 1

* Driver/Rider: man, aged 87

Vehicles involved: 2

* 1 Lorry (over 7.5 tonnes)
* 1 Car (inc. private car)

This record tells us nothing about the accident or it's cause, how many people reading this record will make an incorrect assumptions about the accident, highlighting were deaths occurred is not the way forward, what is really needed is to record the cause were known, or probable cause were not. Only then will road users, of what ever type, be able to adapt their own behaviour to avoid similar situations.

Steve (Bella)

Thanks for the excellent information about mapping road deaths across, the United Kingdom...

~Dennis Junior~

To answer Peter Lane's question, the government's own figures put it at a mere 5-7% of deaths or serious injuries being caused by exceeding the posted speed limit. Far more are caused by inappropriate speed (WITHIN THE LIMIT) for the conditions. However, you appear to be one of a great number of people who believe that all these problems can be solved - simply by sticking to the speed limits. Indeed, the government appeared to think so to, with its increasingly draconian enforcement of speed limits around the country in the last 10 years (and with very little to show for it)! It has now dawned on them that the policy isn't working (hardly surprising when their own figures showed it wasn't that big a problem anyway) - hence the current move to reduce speed limits all over the place. Presumably, when the limits get low enough to allow a man with a red flag to preceed each motor car on foot, they will try a different tactic?

It is not for society to question why road crashes are the largest single cause of accidental death to 5 to 35 year olds,it should be the Police and the DfT.It is a national disgrace that Hendon trained traffic Police are now almost non existent when there should have been an increase in there numbers,while the many instances of many accidents close together on one stretch of road should have had the DfT and the Highway authhority improving and re engineering the road,but that will cost money always the more important consideration.
Indicating which of the recorded deaths involved a driver exceeding the posted limit while NOT under the influence of drink or drugs and the ones that were seperately, would be helpful and revealing and the most relevant for road safety professionals and the driving public,but not something the "authorities" would like us all to see as the DfT know only too well from their own statistics.

As a mother I am very mindful of the growing statistics of young driver fatalities. As you can imagine, young drivers want to get out there. Have their freedom. But as a parent, I'm naturally worried as they have little driving experience for at least the first couple of years. That's why car insurance policies specifically designed around young driver safety is so important. i-kube is just one. What I particularly like about i-kube is that it incentivises young drivers to not drive between 11pm and 5am - when they are most at risk. The incentive is so good that it makes car insurance so affordable that young drivers can start to earn their own no claims and gain valuable driving experience.

All too often, authorities take the 'quick fix' solution of lowering speed limits to artificial levels as a supposed 'cure' to an accident black spot. Near where I live, there is a 5 km stretch of dual carriageway.

Within this stretch are two very POORLY DESIGNED junctions, at which there have been a few accidents over the years. The local authority's solution? Lower the WHOLE 5 km stretch of dual carriageway from 70 mph to 50 mph, with a speed camera at each junction. There have at the same time been some improvements to the junctions, although they are still badly designed. I am sure though that any reductions in accidents will be attributed to the speed cameras and lower speed limit, rather than the junction improvements.

This speed limit reduction and the speed cameras is not a very intelligent solution - as you approach the junction, your concentration is now on your speedometer (it is very hard to keep to 50 mph, as that is a very artificially low limit for this stretch of road), rather than on the junction. I cannot see this reducing accidents at all.

The sensible solution would have been to keep the limit at 70 mph - entirely suitable for the road but for the junctions - and make the junctions into roundabouts (there's a roundabout at each end of the road anyway). Roundabouts are the safest form of junction there is, and these would have had the desired effect of lowering vehicle speeds AT THE JUNCTIONS ONLY.

But then of course the local authority would not be collecting the fines from all those speed cameras....

In reply to comments @ #7 and #8:

Sorry but simplistic answers/solutions do not help, driving is not dangerous per sa, many millions of miles are driven each and every month without any problems (we only get to hear about 'when driving goes wrong').

"greymilfordian", all causes need to be listed, it's probably far more important than recording the actual location (se my comments @ #4), only then can society (as well as the Police, VOSA, DfT etc.) tackle the causes, be that excess speed, excess alcohol, pedestrians not paying attention, road layout or what ever.

"theboosh", there is nothing natively dangerous about driving at night, in fact some would argue that it's actually safer, what makes it dangerous for the 16 - 25 age group is peer and social pressure, I suspect that a similar improvement in accident numbers (to that found by the use of 'black box' insurance schemes) would be the the fitting of immobiliser that detects if anyone within the car has been drinking alcohol...
I would also contest your basic premise about these schemes;

"The incentive is so good that it makes car insurance
so affordable that young drivers can start to earn their
own no claims and gain valuable driving experience."

Sorry but it's actually lulling those young drivers into a fails sense of security, no one would claim to be an 'experienced driver' having just passed the test but how many of these 'young' drivers will consider themselves experienced - and in some ways they will be - once they are either allowed to drive during the hours between 11pm and 5am or can afford the extra insurance premiums charged for doing so, they will consider themselves experienced but will actually have little to no experience of certain driving situations - an even more lethal mix! :-(

All that might well end up happening, and we don't really know as these schemes are in their early days still, is that we simply shift age at which the young start having road traffic accidents, and probably how serious these accidents are...

9. At 10:20am on 17 Dec 2009, conedia wrote:

"Within this stretch are two very POORLY DESIGNED junctions, at which there have been a few accidents over the years. The local authority's solution? Lower the WHOLE 5 km stretch of dual carriageway from 70 mph to 50 mph, with a speed camera at each junction."

Totally agree with your well made comments, the same solution (sans speed camera) was used at the location of the accident I cited in comment #4, trouble is, the speed limit was lowered on the main road to that of the already imposed maximum national speed limit for HGVs (which is 'governed' within the vehicles 'speed limiter'), meaning that the lorry would have been travelling at that speed (or lower) anyway - go figure...

"The sensible solution would have been to keep the limit at 70 mph - entirely suitable for the road but for the junctions - and make the junctions into roundabouts (there's a roundabout at each end of the road anyway). Roundabouts are the safest form of junction there is, and these would have had the desired effect of lowering vehicle speeds AT THE JUNCTIONS ONLY."

How far apart are the two existing roundabouts from these junctions, if within reasonable distance why not just close the centre gaps and thus force road users to turn left and do 'U-turns' at the roundabouts? Sounds to me that someone somewhere decided that that location was good for another 'cash-cow' (speed camera) and the last thing thay actually want to do is make the road safe(r), that would mean they would then have no excuse for the said 'cash-cow'...

I think it is unfortunate that in the coverage of road accidents this week no mention has been made of the British Association for Immediate Care. For over 30 years its members have been attending road accidents on a voluntary basis. Initially it was to put doctors at the scene as there were no paramedic, but over the years the Association promoted the development of Paramedics, and helped found both the Resuscitation Council UK and the Faculty of Pre-hospital Care of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. You will see the BASICS badge on the flight suits of the London HEMS doctors, and there were 20+ BASICS doctors at 7/7. The Association not only attends many road accidents every year but also drownings, stabbings, shootings, and medical emergencies as well. BASICS doctors advise the Department of Health and the HPA. BASICS Education teaches doctors, nurses, paramedics, ships medical crew, rig medics and the military.

BASICS however is a voluntary group and can't always tell the press what they do because of confidentiality issues and the Ambulance Service Press Officers do not often say how they depended on the help provided. BASICS cannot compete with the eye grabbing Air Ambulance charities, but if you had never heard of BASICS please look at the website www.basics.org.uk and read about the work they do, unrecognised and unsung.

The need for 'speed to avoid a crash' is a red herring advanced by people who enjoy driving aggressively and dangerously. I have driven roughly two million miles in my lifetime and have never had to accelerate in order to avoid an accident.

BP at #11:

Thanks for the comments. The two junctions are each about 1 km away from the roundabouts at each end, and therefore are about 3 km apart. The improvements actually partially closed off the central gap - it is no longer possible to make a right turn out of the side roads into the dual carriageway, but it is still possible to make a right turn (into a right turn lane) from the dual carriageway into the side roads.

The junctions' bad design was exascerbated by an 'acceleration lane' when turning left into the dual carriageway - in essence a tapered feed-in lane, into which you made a very sharp left turn from the side road. This feed-in lane meant that drivers entered the dual carriageway without looking, and pulled into the stream of traffic regardless of whether it was safe to do so. These feed-in lanes have also been blocked off, now requiring a sharp left turn direct into the dual carriageway - better, but still a poor solution.

As you say, there seems little need now for the cameras. When the cameras first appeared (before the improvements and speed limit reduction), they were covered over after about three months - rumour has it that the number of accidents INCREASED (i.e. hence my comments on what you are concentrating on as you approach the junctions - your speedometer rather than the road). The covers came off when the speed limit was reduced - cash cow indeed.

#13. At 1:01pm on 17 Dec 2009, Robert wrote:

"The need for 'speed to avoid a crash' is a red herring advanced by people who enjoy driving aggressively and dangerously."

There is assertive, defensive, aggressive and dangerous driving, the four are not the same nor equal...

"I have driven roughly two million miles in my lifetime and have never had to accelerate in order to avoid an accident."

But how many accidents have you seen in your rear view mirror, assuming that you have been aware of what is occurring around you, assuming that you have never had an avoidable accident...

"13. At 1:01pm on 17 Dec 2009, Robert wrote:
The need for 'speed to avoid a crash' is a red herring advanced by people who enjoy driving aggressively and dangerously. I have driven roughly two million miles in my lifetime and have never had to accelerate in order to avoid an accident. "

I beg to differ. I also have driven a huge distance in my lifetime (2.5 million km or 1.5 million miles), and can think of two instances where some extra speed was a lifesaver. Both involved passing or overtaking long trucks. One was on an empty two lane A-road, just as I was about 7/8ths past a long vehicle. Out of a field on the right trundled a large farm vehicle - he obviously looked left, but not right. I was too close to both the farm vehicle and the truck's cab to slow down and pull in behind. After a few milliseconds of panic, I accelerated to well above the speed limit and got past safely, albeit with not much to spare.

The other incident was in the centre lane of the M1. I was alongside a LHD truck on Polish plates. Another truck was right behind me. Traffic was streaming past me in the right lane. All of a sudden, the Polish truck started to move into my lane. I could not slow down - the truck behind me was too close (and he would have ploughed into the back of me if I had braked heavily), and I couldn't move into the right lane. Fortunately, there was lots of space in front of me (I always leave a large gap between me and the vehicle in front), and I was able to accelerate, up to between 80 and 85 mph, and pull ahead of the truck just as he missed my rear bumper by millimetres.

So, not a red herring - there ARE times when it is neccessary to exceed the speed limit, even if only briefly. I would say that you are very lucky if it has never happened to you.

Dragging the blog back to its subject (the map), I would agree that it seems a good idea. But the only useful analysis which can be performed is on location. There is no indication about who the fatality was -- a driver, a drunk pedestrian who wandered into the road, someone entirely innocently walking along the pavement, etc.

Nor is there any data about the overall level of traffic. In the example image in the blog, there is a concentration of markers between Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks. This is a single-carriageway stretch of the A21, and it could be the first two-way road since a driver left Durham. But is that the reason for the cluster, or simply that it's far busier than a similar road elsewhere in the county? A higher volume of traffic will almost certainly mean more accidents happen.

And the map's implementation is awful. Really slow and difficult to use. Google Maps (also used by the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ for this sort of thing) are far better.

I have spent several thousand hours since 2001 studying road casualty data and trends, initially in connection with my ECHR right to silence case (Google "Idris Francis" and "ECHR".) On that basis, these comments:

1/ "Even though that figure has come down substantially in the past decade"

This statament is seriously misleading and complacent. Since 1993 in excess of 10,000 more people have died on our roads than would sensibly have been predicted in 1993 on the basis of a benign trend going back at least to WW2.

In only 5 of the last 15 years have deaths fallen significantly, in stark contrast to 1968 to 1993. 2008/9 deaths did fall markedly, but so did traffic due to high petrol prices and the recession, thus being in part responsible for the falls.

It is entirely illogical to believe that policies that had failed for 15 years would suddenly have started to work in 2008/9

Since 1993 deaths per vehicle km have fallen at 1/3 of the previous long term rate.

The British Medical Journal reported in June 2006 that the 40% fall in police data for serious injuries was not reflected in hospital records, which show no fall at all, and that the police fall is due only to falling reporting levels.

Claims to be "on target for 2010" are therefore bogus, as Transcom stated in their OCT 2008 report.

2/ "road crashes are still the largest single cause of accidental death for people between the ages of five and 35-years-old. Yet all this seems to be something which society as a whole rarely questions."

Perhaps because "society" understands the reality, rather than selective and misleading figures:

1,800 people die in Britain every day - 8 a day on the roads, while hospitals KILL 200 every day through medical errors, botched surgery, hospital aquired infections etc etc etc. (See Dr. Mark Porter in the Radio Times 30 Sept-6 Oct 2000)

In 1900 250,000 children died every year, mostly from diseases we could not cure - now 5,000 die, of whom 150 die on the roads. Much the same applies to all ages, with life span now around 80 compared to 45 in 1900 Little of this massive progress could have been made without the personal and business mobility provided by motor vehicles. Overall, cars SAVE far far more lives than they cost.

There were 4,000 suicides last year - 60% more than road deaths

3/ "Over 10 years there have been more than 32,000 fatal crashes and it would be almost impossible to display all this on one map at once, so we have split up the data into individual years and then again into police authorities so that it downloads more easily."

Anyone who knows anything about road accidents - the near random coincidence of usually several contributory factors - knows that a single year is much too short a period to me statistically meaningfu. Weather, economic crises, road changes, local factors all contribute.

Without bothering to look at the maps it is OBVIOUS that the maps for different years, but for the same police area, will be very different, simply because next year accidents happen, largely, somewhere else.
These maps are therefore pretty much a waste of time and money.

If you wish to give them any meaning whatever - and incidentally cut down on the number of maps - you would need to show fatalities for AT LEAST 3, preferably 5 years. It would be quite possible to do this, simply by using small dots instead of the large "flags" you show.

It should be perfectly simple to change the colour of any individual location to indicate the number of fatalities at that spot, if too close to show separately.

As for the comments from readers:

I too have driven 1m miles or so, in cars from a 22mph 1935 Austin 10, with burned out valves,to a 1933 55 mph Austin 16 to 150mph Jaguar E types, 120 mph 6.3 litre Bentley Continentals, 1989 Jaguar 5.3 litre V12s, 1999 Daimler V8 4 litre and I can assure you without any reservation whatever that the safer cars are the fastest cars - not least because they also tend to have the best brakes and roadholding, but because of the reserve of power available to accelerate out of trouble when necessary - whether the problem arose from my own error or someone els's.

Robert, who writes that "I have driven roughly two million miles in my lifetime and have never had to accelerate in order to avoid an accident" must have been extroardinarily lucky in that time - and perhaps extraordinarily unaware at the same time - never to have been put at risk at least by someone else's mistake. The other correspondents are absolutely right - there are only 4 degress of freedom available, left, right, slower, faster and to remove the last one is a recipe for disaster - I know, I have driven enough cars with faults causing unexpected total loss of power (eg 1938 Alvis Speed 25 at 70mph on the M27, my current Jaguar V12 with as yet unsolved unpredictable loss of power for a second or two, to know how dangerous the inability to accelerate can be.


We have had 15 years of simplistic, naive and unbelievably incompetent road safety policy combined with self-serving refusal to face facts.

Idris Francis

#18. At 4:28pm on 17 Dec 2009, Idris Francis wrote:

"If you wish to give them any meaning whatever - and incidentally cut down on the number of maps - you would need to show fatalities for AT LEAST 3, preferably 5 years. It would be quite possible to do this, simply by using small dots instead of the large "flags" you show."

To be fair the same information can be gained by the user by selecting the area of interest and simply 'clicking' through the 10 years shown. Therefore because you have not, by your own admission, looked at the maps to closely you might have failed to understand just what information can be accessed via the maps. There are many faults with the data shown either on the maps or by the links but the above criticism is simply not fair, it's quite possible to workout the ten year figure, never mind your suggested five.

North wales police under the guidance of (thankfully) former Chief Richard Brunstrom led the way on speed cameras,zero tolerance of speeding and generally vindictive approach toward motorists. This has resulted in a general loss of respect for police but importantly it has certainly NOT reduced KSI accidents. If one takes into account better car & motorcycle design,tyres brakes and traction control systems the trend is actually up. Coincidentally the number of properly trained (Hendon, Bridgend,Preston Home oFfice Driving schools)Class 1 officers in N Wales has declined. This is really worrying because only fatal or very serious injury accidents are subjected to scrutiny by a fully trained officer thus flawing the accident statistics and allowing an opportunity for miscarriage of justice to occur. This manifests itself in a prejudice by lesser qualified officers that the driver of the largest, or most powerful or quickest) vehicle is the culprit.
Look at the police service overall and study their accident statistics it is remarkable; there are very few accidents that involve Professional Class1 police drivers even though these officers regularly exceed the 100mph instant ban and possibly prison sentence speed. Why? The answer is training, training and more training plus constant practice of their skills.
And that is the crux of the matter: training. Only officers really interested in driving have the tenacity to achieve Class1.
This is where the effort is needed to encourage the young and the poseurs to take a pride in the art of driving and to accept further training which would allow them to move up from a basic vehicle to higher performance vehicles.
Notwithstanding the above I agree with every word written by boilerplate.
No I am not a police Class 1 driver but I was taught by a Class1 Driving instructor and still enjoy regular refresher courses to sharpen up my driving. A good place to start is the Insitute of Advanced Motorists.
It is not the fall that kills its the sudden stop at the end!

Whilst I agree with Robert (Message 13) that speed, in itself, is not essential to ensure road safety (otherwise drivers of farm tractors and camper vans would be rather over-represented in the killed or seriously injured statistics!), I feel the rest of his statement is the sort of sweeping generalisation that has no place in a reasoned debate. Clearly, there are OCCASIONS when speed (or, more accurately, acceleration) CAN be useful. The prudent driver will simply limit his or her behaviour according to a number of factors (including the performance of the vehicle he or she is driving). Having driven some very slow vehicles and some very fast vehicles in my time, itseems only common sense to adapt one's driving style to the qualities of the vehicle one is driving. It should be patently self-evident to anyone who has drive a couple of million miles that not every driver of a fast car that they see drives "aggressively and dangerously". Similarly, it is also perfectly possible to drive a slow car "aggressively and dangerously".

These maps are an interesting idea, but it's not the facts about road safety that are hard to get, it's independent analysis.

I looked at the deaths in Great Britain and produced this report:
www.speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_gb_road_safety.htm

The DfT seem completely oblivious to the catastrophy that occurred to road safety exactly at the time speed cameras started, and they are still in complete denial today.

If we wish to save lives on the roads, we MUST learn the lessons of the mistakes of the past. Carrying on policies that have failed for more than a decade just causes more suffering to even more people.

I offer a challenge:

Can anyone find any of these fatal collisions from the maps and reports where it could be reasonably argued that a speed camera may have prevented it?

I have been looking into road safety for years but haven't yet seen or heard of an actual example of a fatal collision where a speed camera would have prevented it.

#23. At 9:58pm on 17 Dec 2009, speedcamerareport_co_uk wrote:

"I offer a challenge:

Can anyone find any of these fatal collisions from the maps and reports where it could be reasonably argued that a speed camera may have prevented it?"

Of course there will be no such accident as speed cameras do not control the motor vehicle, if someone is driving a stolen car, has illegal 'masking' number plates fitted or simply doesn't care about receiving a fine and points they are never going to take any notice of a speed sign never mind a speed camera!

Your question is as loaded as some speed camera locations, almost guaranteed to give the result you are seeking...

Peter Lane @ 1

"How many of the speed related deaths are due to speeds in excess of the speed limit? I believe that the greatest contribution to road safety would be the fitting of 70 mph speed limiters to all cars followed by fitting satelite controlled speed restricters to all new cars."


What a load of rubbish.

First, the only roads on which 70 mph is legal in the UK are motorways and dual carriageways, and all the evidence is that these are by far our safest roads, even though many drivers regularly exceed that limit.

Second, the legal limits in othsr European countries in whcih those cars may be driven are almost all higher. It would be dangerous to drive a 70 mph limited car on a French autoroute (130km/h/81 mph max), German autobahn (no limit) or even Irish motorway (120km/h/75mph)becuase it would not be possible to keep up with the traffic, consigning UK drivers to fight it out between lorries in the nearside lane doing 90 km/h/56mph and faster traffic in the outer lane to overtake them.

Third, any attempt to take control away from the driver of the speed travelled creates a 'drive up to the limit' zombie mentality, rather than a constant adjustment of speed to take account of road, traffic and weather conditions.

The way to cut casualties is to:-

1. improve education of all road users (including cyclists and pedestrian) to make them understand that the primary responsibilty for their safety and that of others lies with them. Where did the Green Cross Code taught to children about crossing roads go for example?

2. continue to improve vehicle design to make vehicles safer; and

3. restore the contious improvement in road design enjoyed in this country until the early 1990s, when the profitable 'solution' of speed cameras emerged. Continuous improvement by extending the (very safe) motorway ntework, turning single carriageways into dual carriageways with a central reservation, getting rid the lethal right turns on dual carriageways, improved junction designs including especialy teh construction of 'islands' where right-turners can wait on single carriageways will yield much greater benefits - there are many more examples; and

4. the return of sensible policing of speed by Police Officers who can distinguish between dangerous driving and safe driving. A speed camera set at 70 mph will catch a safe driver doing 80 mph in good conditions but not a maniac doing 50 mph in near-zero viibility in dense fog on a motorway.

Note the selected age group, five to thirty five years old. Children who do not stand a chance in some accidents, and those whose driving experience may be less than they believe it to be.

It is true that, in the wrong set of circumstances, any few feet of roadway can be deadly to someone, and "thinking time" for the driver must include some embedded "Just what innocent may I kill or maim if I try to do what I am proposing?" especially just before they unlock a car door.

#26. At 1:04pm on 19 Dec 2009, Angel_in_Transit wrote:

"It is true that, in the wrong set of circumstances, any few feet of roadway can be deadly to someone, and "thinking time" for the driver must include some embedded "Just what innocent may I kill or maim if I try to do what I am proposing?" especially just before they unlock a car door."

...or indeed before stepping off the pavement without first properly checking that the road is clear, allowing their cycle to weave across the carriageway, to cycle up a one-way street in the wrong direction, or indeed on the wrong side of the road against the flow of traffic - just to name four causes of accident were motorist are most often the innocent party but nearly always get (at least some of) the blame, those in charge of a motor vehicle of course have to "think" but surely they should not be expected to think for other all the time?

If anyone questions the wisdom of accelerating out of trouble, I give you the following taken from the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ H2G2 pages. It refers to an incident at Tower Bridge, London.

"In 1952, a number 78 double-decker bus was unlucky enough to be on the bridge when it opened. Back then, the lights would change to red, the gateman would ring bells to encourage the pedestrians to move off the bridge quickly and close the gates, and the head watchman would order the bridge to lift when it was clear. On this day in December, there was a relief watchman, and something went wrong. Albert Gunter, the driver, saw that the road ahead appeared to be sinking. In fact, his bus was perched on the end of an opening bascule, which was giving the illusion of a sinking road ahead. He realised that he would not be able to stop in time to prevent going into the water, and making a split second decision, decided he would go for it. He accelerated and jumped the three feet gap, landing on the north bascule, which had not started to rise. None of his dozen passengers were seriously hurt, and he received £10 for his bravery. He also appeared later on 'What's My Line?'"


Had Driver Gunter not been able to accelerate out of trouble, the number of passengers injured would surely have been much higher.

"How many of the speed related deaths are due to speeds in excess of the speed limit?"

Wasn't the figure of around 5% of serious accidents caused by drivers exceeding the speed limit confirmed by a Chief Constable from the North East of England? He then went on to say that most of those were stolen cars, unlicensed drivers, cars being chased by the police.

#27

Actually the onus IS on the driver of the motor vehicle since they are in possession of a "weapon" that can kill someone very, very easily. The Highway Code goes to some lengths to explain the necessity to consider all other road users, no matter how irritating, erratic, irresponsible, or ponderous their behaviour may be. If you don't want to "think" about all the other road users, then don't drive.

#30. At 00:50am on 20 Dec 2009, Angel_in_Transit wrote:

"#27

Actually the onus IS on the driver of the motor vehicle since they are in possession of a "weapon" that can kill someone very, very easily."

"Cyclist kills pedestrian child" - Just one of the true headlines from the last few years... How many innocent car drivers or passengers have been injured (or even possible killed) because some thoughtless or unsupervised pedestrian steps off a pavement (perhaps from behind a parked vehicle) into the path of a motor vehicle that then has to take avoiding action?

Sorry but you are wrong, the onus is on the road user, who ever they are, and that includes pedestrians. How ever good, experienced and observant a driver is no motor vehicle can stop on a sixpence, even at this magical 20mph (that we are being told will be so good at making urban roads safe), they probably can't do so even at 5mph in some conditions.

"The Highway Code goes to some lengths to explain the necessity to consider all other road users, no matter how irritating, erratic, irresponsible, or ponderous their behaviour may be. If you don't want to "think" about all the other road users, then don't drive"

Indeed, but the Highway Code (and the laws that it cites) is for EVERYONE who uses the roads, not just motor vehicle drivers or riders. I suggest that you go and actually read a copy!...

If one would drive just more slowly, many accidents would not happen.
Drivers that are drunken is a special issue, they should be taken away the driving licence if they cause accidents.

#31

I have never said pedestrians were not road users. However, pedestrians do have a special place as the least well protected road user. They have the right of way when drivers leave a main road for example (unless there are traffic controls) but you wouldn't think so judging the attitude of by far the majority of motorists. You wouldn't think so when the "school run" blocks side roads and pavements forcing pedestrians into the road; "Blow you Jack, I've gotta get my kid(s) to school.... and my time is so much more important than yours" etc.

The case you cite is irrelevant to the discussion in point which is about stupidly selfish people causing avoidable accidents. I think you'll find that ROSPA blames motorists for travelling too fast in all but a handful of urban accidents. After all mustn't miss answering that sneaky mobile call.... must they, despite it being against the law?

It is much too easy to be distracted these days, and when you have a few tons of steel in your hands most pedestrians do not stand a chance. You cannot say the reverse, most motorists do not stand a chance against a pedestrian, is true can you? If motorists cannot learn to be good drivers all the time, then they shouldn't be on the roads. So how many accidents with vehicle damage does it take to lose a license?

#32. At 5:36pm on 20 Dec 2009, voice_germany wrote:

"If one would drive just more slowly, many accidents would not happen."

Wrong, unless you mean not driving at all, a car could kill at 1mph (One), if some unobservant or unsupervised pedestrian should step out...

33. At 8:53pm on 20 Dec 2009, Angel_in_Transit wrote:

"I have never said pedestrians were not road users.[..//..]"

You never said that they were either, that was the point!

Angel, do yourself a favour, go and actually read the Highway code, you seem to have little or no understanding of rights of way etc.

"They [pedestrians] have the right of way when drivers leave a main road for example"

They do not have a universal right of way, only if they have started to cross, and that doesn't mean that they have a right to just step out at junctions, they still should check to see if there is any approaching traffic and that means traffic intending to turn into the diverging road - but you wouldn't think so judging the attitude of by far the majority of pedestrians...

[quote]
146. Take extra care at junctions. You should
* watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians
as they are not always easy to see

* watch out for pedestrians crossing the road into which
you are turning. If they have started to cross they
have priority, so give way.
[unquote]


"The case you cite is irrelevant to the discussion in point which is about stupidly selfish people causing avoidable accidents."

No, it's highly relevant, your problems is that it rather blows your (apparent) 'anti car' agenda clean out of the water, an uncomfortable truth. Angle, do you in fact drive, or at least have a motor-cycle/vehicle licence, either full or provisional?

"I think you'll find that ROSPA blames motorists for travelling too fast in all but a handful of urban accidents."

As I said at #34, how fast is to fast, a motor vehicle could kill when travelling at just 1mph if a unaware pedestrian decided to step in from of the said vehicle.

"After all mustn't miss answering that sneaky mobile call.... "

Oh yes, but it OK for stupid or under supervised pedestrians to do such things whilst just stepping off the pavement without looking...

"must they, despite it being against the law?"

I assume you mean a non "Hands-Free" phone call, it's still legal to make 'hands-free' phone calls. At least a motorist using a hand held mobile phone is a lot less dangerous than a cyclist doing like wise and often cycling without any hands on the hand-bars whilst being equally distracted by the phone call...

All road users are equally responsible for their own and other road users safety and well being, not just motorists - QED.

#35

I think you like a good argument, boilerplated, without a notion of where I am coming from. And please do not persist with your infantile remarks about the Highway Code - I started reading it before you were born. You simply confirmed what I have already said as a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian road user who has seen too many selfish motorists and cyclists, and many pedestrians scared witless by thoughtless idiots in or on motor vehicles and pushbikes.

And as for your comprehension skills then they are very remiss. Mobile phones are a distraction, as are conversations, lighting up cigarettes, changing stations on the radio or CDs, cassettes, looking at pretty things, applying make-up, adjusting seat, thinking about the argument you have just had etc, etc. Motorists, exceptionally so in urban areas, need ALL their attention on the road - otherwise avoidable accidents will continue. That is what I clearly stated in previous posts and remains unequivocally true. So what is your point?

Motorists cause avoidable accidents every minute of every day, and your irritation will not change that one little bit. Driving better may just however.

#36. At 09:23am on 21 Dec 2009, Angel_in_Transit wrote:

"I think you like a good argument,"

Looked in the mirror lately?....

#37

Even within this item I think you worthily hold the crown as an angry and argumentative motorist. Bet you drive like that too.

#38. At 10:38am on 21 Dec 2009, Angel_in_Transit wrote:

"#37

Even within this item I think you worthily hold the crown as an angry and argumentative motorist. Bet you drive like that too."

WRONG again Angle, might I suggest that you actuall try reading what I say and not replying to what you think I have said, and then you might also do the decent thing and apologise for your baseless slur...

I used to race Jaguars so I have some knowledge of the role of speed in crashes. Over the years five of the people I used to race against have been killed on the public road, usually because of travelling too fast for the conditions. I wonder how many people know that force varies with the square of speed, so at 80 mph you hit something with four times the force of 40 mph (and 16 times the force of 20 mph). Road crashes cause 1.3 million deaths world wide each year. I suspect that serious enforcement of the traffic laws could at least halve this.

I am sorry to say that too many accidents are anything but - they are brought about by poor driving - I have only today found myself on a small icy Suffolk road tailgated by an impatient driver - although I was driving at the 30 MPH limit through East Bergholdt. This is not unusual I frequently find that people drive far too close - as close as 6 feet - even in good conditions. Frequently I have been tailgated and flashed at 70 MPH in the fast lane when overtaking - not even sticking in that lane which is after all not meant to be remained in - it should be for overtaking not a lane for speeding. The AA mentioned driving too close as a major problem on Radio 4 the other day but no - one is listening! Please drivers slow down and keep your distance! Why doesn't the news feature the problem of these idiots more - it should be made illegal. I am convinced it kills more people than any other accident. Surely this cannot be seen as an accident because these people do it on purpose and that cannot be seen as an accident - it is dangerous driving plain and simple.

Angel, if you want to reduce accidents and the misery and suffering so often associated with them, you should encourage EVERY road user to play their part - not just always expect the motorist to cope with the stupidity of any other road user.

If, however, your agenda is anti-car (rather than road safety), then all your arguments make perfect sense.

Wightroutemaster, I'm confused. Is your argument that in order to be safe, a vehicle must be able to accelerate as fast as a 1952 routemaster?

Robert, There is no "force" created simply by "speed". Forces arise in response to a deceleration or acceleration. The amount of ENERGY dissipated is proportional to the square of the acceleration (or deceleration in the case of an accident) but the relationship between that and injury severity is far from clear.

IH Re point 43. I could be pedantic and say they hadn't made Routemasters in 1952, I believe Albert Gunter was driving an RT, but my point is that there are occasions when the safest course of action is acceleration, not breaking. If your vehicle speed is artificially limited, you could find yourself in trouble.

Dear Editor,friend,
I have completed on many road,other transport connected accidents in U.K.
Very sorry to hear the demise of innocent persons in road accidents.
That was not only happened in U.K.but,these state of sorry incidents happens in a day today account.
In India, daily, more number of persons,especially from students,adults,seniors and tourist visitors,school/college students are dying or seriously injured due to the following reasons.
1.No proper traffic rules, or no proper road sense from travelers,sudden violating all traffic norms, crossing railway tracks-that is prohibited by law,
2.Using cellphones while crossing bridges,railway and bus platforms and crossing in important junctions.
3.Driving under the influence of liquor.
4.Sudden overtaking of their vehicles.
5.Standing,sitting and talking in the middle roads.
6.Foot board travel in over crowded buses and in trains.
7.Sudden stoppages of buses in non stopping,prescribed places.
I hope that,your detailed on rash driving,death on roads,injuries and credibility of driving etc.etc.,will pave the new,constructive ways in regard to action oriented schedules, better education and more awareness towards safe,correct driving and following correct road rules and regulations.
Happy New Year,2010 to my friend,journalist,your family,your friends and to our ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ editors,staff,members and users.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

here is the big question, how many of those deaths are caused by speeding, and how many of them are caused by unsafe cars that fold onto themselves?

I had a car accident a few years back, hit some ice and took out a fence. The car was totaled. All in all, there was about 50K worth of damage(apparently fences are expensive). But since my car was safe, I didn't even feel the impact.

I'm serious... I got out of the car, cursing, thinking I dented my bumper, only to find out that the car was destroyed.

A bet safer cars can mitigate a lot of those deaths. I remember seeing an episode of Fifth Gear, where they drove a scrappy little smart car into a concrete barrier at high speeds. Car was totaled, but the driver area was perfectly fine. Or how about that story a little while back where someone crashed a Ferarri Enzo at 200+ mph and walked away just fine.

Speed doesn't kill people, unsafe cars that can't handle a crash do.

I wish the South African government would consider your article as a benchmark as to what may even vaguely be considered acceptable in terms of road deaths and make it a priority to manage in South Africa. You mention that 2,538 people were killed on Britain's road last year - in South Africa over the 2 week holiday season in December 2009 there were some 1,200+ deaths on South African roads.

This is largely due to the high instance of drink driving around this period and it seems to be worsening every year. The SA govt has been threatening to introduce a penalty point system similar to that in most first world countries but have failed to deliver on this year after year - the situation is really quite pathetic here.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#53. At 11:07am on 08 Jan 2010, Nayna Desai wrote:

"Speed doesn't kill people, unsafe cars that can't handle a crash do."

Sorry, far to simplistic (no surprise there, judging from your other comments, do you tend to blame inanimate objects rather than ones-self when you mess up?...), one could safely travel along a road in a tin bath on wheels with a spike sticking out of the steering wheel and until a human (either within or outside the 'car') makes an error of judgement no harm will be done. Motor vehicles are by design inert objects, no one has yet made a vehicle that drives it's self, some other factor is always at work when ever and were ever an accident occurs.

re my comment @ #55:

Oops, messed up the attributions, I was in fact replying to comments made @ #52. Apologies to "Nayna Desai".

"Each crash is mapped to the location where it occurred and many data points include links through to local newspaper reports about the crash", the problem is, will this data get the attention of road users? Probably not, i would say.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think, drunk is the number one which make car crash. the goverment should have strict and hard rule about drunk. of course, we don't want to die hard on the road. I really apriciate if ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ make some campaigns about anti drunk in public area, especially driver. it'll make ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ help people's live.