I stumbed across the following data from Admiral at www.admiral.com/pressOffice/pressReleases/250105.p...l and found it very interesting:
The best and worst places for motorists in 2004 revealed
Motorists in the Harrow area of London had the worst driving record of anywhere in the country last year, according to research by a leading insurer.
Financial intermediary Admiral has looked at the claims frequency of one million motorists across the UK in 2004 and produced a list of the ten best and ten worst places in the country. Motorists in the Harrow postcode area are top of the list, 9.6% of motorists living there had an accident that was their fault.
The list of the worst places for accidents in 2004 is, not surprisingly, dominated by places in and around London. Second in the list is Uxbridge with 9.2% of motorists there having a fault accident and third is north west London, with 9.0%.
People who want to avoid having an accident should consider moving to Scotland, as towns north of the border dominate the list of places with the lowest percentage of accidents. The Galashiels area is top of the list of areas with the lowest frequency of accidents. Just 3.9% of motorists there had an accident last year that was their fault.
Northern Ireland's motorists came second with 4.1% of those living in the Belfast postcode area causing an accident and third was Lancaster with 4.5%. Other Scottish districts in the list of best areas are Dumfries, Perth, Inverness and Aberdeen.
Admiral managing director, Jane Stone, said: "Our figures show the percentage of drivers within each postcode area of the UK who had an accident that was their fault last year. The difference between the best and worst area is quite astonishing. Motorists in Harrow were almost two and a half times more likely to have caused an accident than those in Galashiels. Our research goes some way to explaining why where you live has such an affect on insurance premiums."
The tables below show the ten best and worst postcode areas for fault accidents in 2004. The UK average rate is 6.5% of motorists having a fault accident.
Best Areas
Position Postcode Area %age of motorists with accident 2004
1st TD Galashiels and Scottish borders 3.9%
2nd BT Belfast and Northern Ireland 4.1%
3rd LA Lancaster 4.5%
4th FY Blackpool 4.7%
5th DG Dumfries and Galloway 4.8%
6th PH Perth 4.9%
7th WR Worcester 5.0%
8th IV Inverness and eastern Highlands 5.0%
9th AB Aberdeen 5.2%
10th LN Lincoln 5.2%
Worst Areas
Position Postcode Area %age of motorists with accident 2004
1st HA Harrow 9.6%
2nd UB Uxbridge 9.2%
3rd NW North west London 9.0%
4th CR Croydon 8.8%
5th SM Sutton 8.6%
6th N North London 8.5%
7th IG Ilford 8.4%
8th EN Enfield 8.4%
9th TW Twickenham 8.3%
10th AL St Albans 8.1%
Jane Stone, commented: "Although you would expect motorists in London to have the most accidents, it is interesting that those living in the outlying parts of the city, such as Croydon, Ilford and Twickenham had the worst driving record last year. Maybe those in the centre of the city drive less, or are just more careful."
Issue date: 25-01-05
|
|
This report makes perfect sense to me. I travel around a fair bit and observe significant differences in motorist attitudes/behaviour, and can summarise my findings, by saying the further you get away from London and the Thames Valley the more couteous and relaxed the driving style becomes !
|
|
It'd be very interesting to see what the populations are to go along with these regions... more people & cars = more accidents, regardless of what the %age figures say.
|
Given that i would assume the percentages are based on the percentage of drivers which Admiral insure, the populations have nothing to do with the data.
Population density, however, would seem to play a part, although it is surprising that Manchester, Cardiff, Birmingham etc are not on list.
Think i'll look into insuring my car at my uni address next year, as i live smack bang between no.1 and no.10 worst places!
|
|
It's from a poll of 1m drivers (don't think Admiral have that much of market share!).
|
It's from a poll of 1m drivers (don't think Admiral have that much of market share!).>>
Quite possible. Admiral is a broker.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
Mildly interesting, I guess, but don't take it too seriously.
Admiral is but one insurer, and this is a thoroughly unscientific 'survey' designed to do nothing more than get some free publicity. PR agencies churn this stuff out every day of the week.
But it doesn't stand up to close examination. The 'research' is a few minutes number-crunching of Admiral's claims database. And the implication that if you are from Harrow you're more likely to be a bad driver is a headline-inspired leap of faith.
Follow it through to its logical conclusion and the best drivers are infact on the moon, where I suspect Admiral hasn't had any claims.
|
|
|
Whatever the validity of the sample, it's not very surprising. Away from cities and suburbs the pace of life is slower and people are more relaxed and likely to concentrate more on their driving.
Also the suburbs, especially in SE England, are the worst places to drive as people seem to be less disciplined than in a city centre. There are also more kamikaze mums (and some dads too) doing the school run with their minds on other things.
Te only slightly surprising thing is not see Guildford in the worst 10: for frequency of hazard there's nothing to touch it. A high proportion of the population is 80 in the shade and still driving; and for some doubtless excellent reason the town in built on the side of one of Surrey's steepest hills.
|
While this probably isn't a completely true picture of accident trends, there must be some level of accuracy to it. Which makes it all the more galling that living in Northern Ireland brings the some of the highest insurance premiums in the UK.
--
andymc
Vroom, vroom - mmm, doughnuts ...
|
Its not really best and worst drivers by region.
Was the accident recorded at the place it happened ? In which case how do we know that the main feature of the worst place is not that they have the most visitors from out of their own region ? i.e. people tramping down the M3 and then smashing into things on their way through Richmond. And this would make a nonsense of the ratings, since you should then be rated on where you drive most, not where you live.
Was the accident recorded at the place where the insured lived ? In which case is that an area where there are a lot of commuters or strangers ? At least this would make sense of the post code rating, but would make driver stats absolutely nothign to do with best/worst.
All in all, I agree with the comment earlier - entertaining, but not much use.
|
I live in Blackpool, 4th best in the list.
Simple answer. Drivers are just as pink fluffy dice as anywhere else, but the place is infested with speed cameras and there's always some moron driving at 20mph 'just in case'.
Now passed my bike test, so no need to sit behind the dozy sods any longer.
|
|
I think the high accident rates are caused by Northerners driving in the South who can't cope with our high skill levels. tic.
|
Of they could be from Northerners wanting to get the hell out of the South. ;-)
--
Adam
|
|
|
Southern drivers and skill in the same sentence?
Oh my that's a good one! I've seen more road sense displayed by a two year old on a tricycle than a good number of the drivers in our Capital.
I wasn't including Hemel Hempstead in "the South" of course. (Just in case SWMBO reads this!)
|
Southern drivers and skill in the same sentence? Oh my that's a good one! I've seen more road sense displayed by a two year old on a tricycle than a good number of the drivers in our Capital.
Precisely my point Mr T. The poor driving that you spotted, most probably wasn't carried out by indigenous Southerners, I am so glad that you agree with me. tic?
|
Having lived and driven around Scotland, Merseyside, Surrey, London and Wiltshire. I can honestly say Wiltshire is the worst, roundabouts only exsist to see who can approach the fastest without stopping - even if there is a vehicle on the roundabout at the time!!!
The amount of accidents on the M4 between J17 J19 are very high compared with the rest of the M4 - The laser speed camera's are a waste of time its is the space between vehicles is more important (believe the police have different figures)
K2
|
In central London speeds are too low for accidents. In outer London speeds are higher, and traffic density is fairly high leading to more accidents. In rural areas traffic density is low, and thus less likelihood of accidents, and less likelihood of getting wound up and angry. I might be wrong, but arguments along these lines must be a factor.
Leif
|
|
|
|
|
|
