• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Only 5% of drivers who crash were breaking the speed limit

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Only 5% of drivers who crash were breaking the speed limit

    Only 5% of drivers who crash were breaking the speed limit
    By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

    MOTORING groups have questioned the value of speed cameras after police figures revealed that only one in 20 collisions last year was caused by a driver breaking the speed limit.

    The most common cause of accidents was failing to look properly, a factor in 32 per cent of crashes, followed by failing to judge another vehicle’s speed (18 per cent) and driving carelessly or recklessly (16 per cent). The figures, published by the Department for Transport, contradicted claims by speed camera supporters that speed is a factor in one third of collisions.

    Travelling too fast for the conditions was a factor in 12 per cent of all crashes last year, but none of these involved drivers breaking the speed limit.

    Speed was, however, more likely to be a factor in more serious crashes. About 12 per cent of fatal collisions involved a driver breaking the speed limit. A further 17 per cent of crashes in which someone died involved a driver travelling within the limit, but too fast for the conditions.

    Eight times more men than women involved in crashes had broken the speed limit. Drivers aged 17 to 19 were more likely than any other age group to cause a crash while speeding.

    The RAC Foundation said that information on the causes of collisions, which police began recording only last year, indicated that speed cameras could address only a small part of the road safety problem.

    More than 1.9 million speed camera fines were issued in 2004, up from 340,000 in 1997.

    Edmund King, the foundation’s director, said: “We support speed cameras, but there has been an overemphasis on speed as the cause of accidents. Other factors not detected by cameras have been neglected, such as drink and drug-driving, being distracted by mobiles or sat-navs and drivers generally being too impatient.

    “We need to look at improving driving skills and increasing the number of traffic officers if we are to get road deaths back on a downward trend.”

    The number of road deaths fell by less than 1 per cent last year, to 3,201. The number of traffic police in England and Wales declined by 11 per cent between 1996 and 2001, the last year for which figures were available.

    There were 560 deaths last year in collisions involving a driver over the alcohol limit, down from 580 in 2004, but still 100 above the figure recorded in both 1998 and 1999.

    The decline in the number of traffic police meant that fewer breath tests were carried out, down from 816,000 in 1998 to 578,000 in 2004.

    The report also showed that children who walked or cycled to school were much more likely to be killed or seriously hurt than those taken by car. Of the 597 deaths and serious injuries, 471 were on foot, 56 were on bicycles and 34 were in cars. (AtW: and why I see more cameras away from schools, rather than there? Sure - because traffic is too slow at school and they won't make money!)

    Brake, the road safety charity, said that Britain had one of the best overall road safety records, but it was marred by the high child pedestrian death rate, which was seven times higher than Finland and three times higher than Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy.

    Jools Townsend, director of community campaigns at Brake, said: “The Government has a responsibility to ensure that routes between homes and schools are safe for children on foot and bicycles to enable children to use these healthy and environmentally friendly methods of travel.”

    A total of 141 children were killed on the roads last year — 25 fewer than in 2004.

    The number of people seriously injured last year fell by 7 per cent to 28,954. Total casualties — deaths, serious injuries and slight injuries — fell 3 per cent last year to 271,017.

    --------------

    In related new the case of self-incrimination used by British Law to force drivers convict themselves reached European Court, if the case is successful then it should be made illegal to give drivers "option" to either incriminate themselves by saying it was them driving the vehicle at the time of alleged speeding offence, or automatically lose if they refuse to self-incriminate themselves.

    #2
    It’s not even 5% because the 5% includes such accidents as under-age drivers of stolen cars exceeding the speed limit being chased by the police. As if the speed cameras would prevent that.
    "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

    Comment


      #3
      Always amusing thet when accidents go up it's a blip. When they go down it's as a result of speed cameras.
      The court heard Darren Upton had written a letter to Judge Sally Cahill QC saying he wasn’t “a typical inmate of prison”.

      But the judge said: “That simply demonstrates your arrogance continues. You are typical. Inmates of prison are people who are dishonest. You are a thoroughly dishonestly man motivated by your own selfish greed.”

      Comment


        #4
        You have to admit though if all speed limits were reduced to zero and rigorously enforced, the number of accidents would fall dramatically.

        Comment


          #5
          I've only ever had 2 bumps and both were at very low speeds. Once going onto a roundabout - the guy in front went for a gap and then didn't, and once trying to squeeze through a gap which proved to be slightly less than the width of my car. So 2 bumps and speed cameras would not have prevented either.
          Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.

          I preferred version 1!

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by DimPrawn
            You have to admit though if all speed limits were reduced to zero and rigorously enforced, the number of accidents would fall dramatically.

            B’locks, excessive and inappropriate speed yes, but the problem is that the cameras enforce the limit so rigorously that motorists are watching their speedometers rather than concentrating on their driving
            "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

            Comment


              #7
              Why Germans can drive at 155 mph or higher on their motorways, but in the UK it is fixed to 70 mph?

              Comment


                #8
                How did they clock it at 180 mph? did they have speed guns in the 60's
                Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.

                I preferred version 1!

                Comment


                  #9
                  It was threaded on his Lambo, and his second presense was taking speed reading using LasGun model 2050

                  hth

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Well you live and learn.......that's no more speeding for me in the 1960's
                    Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.

                    I preferred version 1!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X