From the DT
Peter Hall addresses criticism of last week's article about offical road safety policy
Speed kills...
Following our publication last week of part of a chapter from a new book on the dangers of scare stories by Christopher Booker and Richard North, all-purpose ecomentalist George Monbiot this week accused the authors of "intellectual dishonesty" and of "ignoring inconvenient facts".
Here, then, are some more facts, which Mr Monbiot may or may not regard as inconvenient. Based on its first survey of the causes of accidents (in 2005), the Department for Transport (DfT) has revealed that exceeding the speed limit is a factor in only two per cent of injury crashes involving drivers over the age of 25. For younger drivers, aged 17-25, the percentage is six per cent, and for the youngest, aged 17-19, it is eight per cent. Travelling too fast for the conditions, rather than exceeding the legal speed limit, is a factor in five, 11 and 14 per cent of crashes respectively. For full details see section 2.5 of the memorandum at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/
cmselect/cmtran/355/7032102.htm
This is not the first time the DfT has disproved its own assertion (over many years) that speeding causes a third of all road accidents; in September last year it was forced to publish figures showing that only five per cent of road accidents involve a vehicle exceeding the speed limit.
While fully supporting law enforcement, many concerned citizens have therefore wondered whether the most effective way to reduce accidents is to replace police traffic patrols with speed cameras. However, such questions do not disturb the intellectual certainty of Mr Monbiot. According to his article in Tuesday?s Guardian, critics of official policy, including road safety experts and serving police officers, are nothing more than ?swaggering petrolheads?.
A case of "Please do not put facts in the way of my plan" ?
|
|
It's probably worth knowing that Booker and Monbiot are pretty much sworn enemies on the subject of the environment, especially windfarms so there is some "hinterland" to these comments, which seems to be spilling over into this question.
|
Are you a "swaggering petrolhead" ?
I do hope so!
--
Roger. (Costa del Sol, España)
|
|
I'm a swaggering dieselhead.
|
I'm a staggering ciderhead, is that any good?
--
Drink Lager, Talk Piffle,
|
|
|
|
While fully supporting law enforcement many concerned citizens have therefore wondered whether the most effective way to reduce accidents is to replace police traffic patrols with speed cameras.
Exactly, no doubt speed cameras have their place in making roads safer but that should not come at the expense of sensible road traffic policing.
Interesting outcome from an Essex Police road traffic policing intiative during the summer is that putting increased patrols on the road and actively targetting poor driver behaviour the road death toll in Essex virtually halved during October. Yes, almost HALVED.
With results like that, although a possible statistical blip, as with any statistics, I certainly don't feel my arguments to be that intellectually flawed and if they make me a 'swaggering petrolhead' then guilty as charged.
I rest my case.
tinyurl.com/36qbnx
Edited by cockle {P} on 19/11/2007 at 13:08
|
|
|
No. Just an average person who owns and uses a car.
Although I admit to occasional bunny hugging, I find Monbiot somewhat obnoxious with his overemotional response, and tendency to resort to verbal abuse of his opponents.
On the same subject, there was a report on speed cameras on R4 today:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/
Use the listen again for today's programme, and they discuss regression to the mean. Some people claim that cameras are erected at a site only after an abnormal blip in accidents, and consequently there is bound to be a subsequent reduction in deaths. According to a recent study, the effect is significant and accounts for about half the drop in deaths claimed by speed camera partnerships. They only studied 30mph roads though, and as with all of these things, there are uncertainties in the method.
To disgress a little, are the year on year figures for Durham available? Surely they would provide a pretty good test of whether or not cameras work.
|
I'm not sure what the latest figures are for Durham. Surprisingly, the government doesn't seem keen to gather and publish figures which may discredit their speed camera policy.
In 2003 road deaths in County Durham were 33% below the national average.
Of more interest is what has happened in areas which are devotees of speed cameras....
www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/19/gatso_deaths_link/
Hertfordshire saw a 24 per cent rise in speed camera numbers between 2003 and 2004. In the same period, road fatalities rose by 34 per cent.
Likewise in Wiltshire, camera numbers went up 14 per cent, and those killed 22 per cent. In County Durham, meanwhile, a lone Gatso oversaw a 22 per cent drop in fatalities.
|
Perhaps I'm unusual in that I'm definitely NOT a petrolhead, swaggereing or otherwise, although I'm interested in (and quite knowledgeable about!) cars and road transport generally. I'd describe myself as an exponent of sensible cars and sensible motoring, and also a Highway Code fundamentalist.
Anyone who applies any common sense to the matter realises that speed is a factor in the majority of accidents. If all vehicles were stationary, there wouldn't be any collisions, after all. I'm not saying that all drivers involved in accidents are to blame for speeding irresponsibly - e.g. you could be driving at a sensible, legal speed on an apparently clear road when a jogger runs straight out in front of you. But speed is still a factor - had you (or the jogger!) been going slower, the outcome might have been different.
|
Cheers SS - pretty much my own philosophy.
Suspect that the "Swaggering Petrolhead" epithet was aimed at Mr Safe Speed.
|
|
|
Sorry SS, but saying "speed is a factor in the majority of accidents" is absurd.
Of course speed is a factor. Stationary objects cannot collide.
The key question is whether speed is the CAUSE of accidents. And as previous posts and links have shown, the government have consistently lied and overstated its significance.
Edited by Squiffy on 21/11/2007 at 21:58
|
"speed is a factor"
And wheels. Get rid of those and problem would go away...
|
|
|
|
|
|
£29,495was £29,795Details
£34,450was £34,795Details
£14,850was £15,050Details
£62,650was £63,250Details
