Is it worth while contesting a fixed-penalty notice speeding fine?

Madd Finn

Got my third fixed penalty notice speeding fine in the post today.

It accuses me, probably accurately, of exceeding the speed limit by doing 60kph in a 50kph area. Or in old money (I drive an old car with speedo in mph) I was doing 37.5mph in a 31.25mph area.

I know that in reality I have broken the law but I'm feeling a little hard done by and I wonder if I'm being seen as a soft touch because I paid the other fines promptly and without fuss.

I don't believe I was driving recklessly. I was keeping to a reasonable speed and frankly to ensure that I never ventured over such a low limit I would either have to drive so slowly as to encourage road rage in other motorists or keep such a close eye on the speedo that it would detract from my general observation of the conditions around me. Neither situation is desirable.

I'm tempted to not pay the FP and take my chances in court where my arguments would be those mentioned above.

Both my other fines were for driving on dual carriageways at about 50mph 80kph in areas where unusually low limits for a dual carriageway pertained.

Anybody any experience in contesting such charges in court?

I won't respond to finger waggers who say "Serves you right. Don't break the law" (Tell me something I don't know)

Nor am I looking for any bastard's sympathy. Just some frank advice, hopefully based on experience, of whether it would be worth the effort.

I CAN afford to pay the €80 FP but I'm just in a "**** it let 'em work for it" mood.


My two other FP fines (none of the penalty points still valid) were for driving at fairly normal speeds for a dual carriageway on parts where the speed limit was unusually low. eg 50mph (back in 2003) on the 30mph limit area of the Long Mile Road, and a similar indiscretion on the outer reaches of the Navan Road.

MarkR

Doesn't matter if you believe if you were driving recklessly or not, the fine was for speeding, so I don't see how your argument will work out?

MikeCairo78

You are not being seen as a soft touch - this system is automated. A judge will have no option but to impose a fine and penalty points as you broke the speed limit. If you want to appeal it, you need to write to the super in charge of traffic in whatever area the speeding occurred. I would say you have no chance of having it expunged if your argument is that you were driving at a safe speed. Speed limits are speed limits - from my experience you need to demonstrate that there was a reason for you to exceed the limit, eg emergency etc

GG66

You were exceeding the speed limit by 20%
Harsh or not, that's significantly above any margin of error..

You'll get more points in court unless you have some technicality other than "but judge I was driving safely"

L1011

Your arguments are useless and you'll be lucky to pay less than 250 in court.

magicbastarder

as above, you'd need to explain what grounds on which you'd be basing an appeal.

Victor

I can't see you getting any where with a judge.

Madd Finn wrote: »

My two other FP fines (none of the penalty points still valid) were for driving at fairly normal speeds for a dual carriageway on parts where the speed limit was unusually low. eg 50mph (back in 2003) on the 30mph limit area of the Long Mile Road, and a similar indiscretion on the outer reaches of the Navan Road.

The speed limits are low on the Long Mile Road because there are traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, private entrances and four schools together with the associated pedestrians, cyclists, young people and turning traffic.

Just because the risk of a head-on collision is reduced doesn't mean that it is safe to travel at a high speed.

Hilly Bill

Madd Finn wrote: »

Got my third fixed penalty notice speeding fine in the post today.

It accuses me, probably accurately, of exceeding the speed limit by doing 60kph in a 50kph area. Or in old money (I drive an old car with speedo in mph) I was doing 37.5mph in a 31.25mph area.

I know that in reality I have broken the law but I'm feeling a little hard done by and I wonder if I'm being seen as a soft touch because I paid the other fines promptly and without fuss.

I don't believe I was driving recklessly. I was keeping to a reasonable speed and frankly to ensure that I never ventured over such a low limit I would either have to drive so slowly as to encourage road rage in other motorists or keep such a close eye on the speedo that it would detract from my general observation of the conditions around me. Neither situation is desirable.

I'm tempted to not pay the FP and take my chances in court where my arguments would be those mentioned above.

Both my other fines were for driving on dual carriageways at about 50mph 80kph in areas where unusually low limits for a dual carriageway pertained.

Anybody any experience in contesting such charges in court?

I won't respond to finger waggers who say "Serves you right. Don't break the law" (Tell me something I don't know)

Nor am I looking for any bastard's sympathy. Just some frank advice, hopefully based on experience, of whether it would be worth the effort.

I CAN afford to pay the €80 FP but I'm just in a "**** it let 'em work for it" mood.


My two other FP fines (none of the penalty points still valid) were for driving at fairly normal speeds for a dual carriageway on parts where the speed limit was unusually low. eg 50mph (back in 2003) on the 30mph limit area of the Long Mile Road, and a similar indiscretion on the outer reaches of the Navan Road.

You got done for a breach of a speed limit and you admit to it so no real point in appealing. As bad as some of the limits are and how safe you were driving, the only factor they are interested in is the breach of the limit.

savagethegoat

not another one .

delahuntv

I feel the pain - i got two in one day! Both 60 in a 50. What was worse was i saw the vans both times but for some reason thought the limit in the 2 areas was 60! Hadn't a ticket in 5 years and then 2 in a day!!

Simply not worth even trying to defend it unless it meant that you had gone over the points limit and were facing a ban and even then it would be difficult.

On top you risk double points, higher fine and cost of day off work.

_Brian

I think OP should go to court and spin his sob story for the judge. Surely
He's being victimised here !!

highdef

For the road rage bit, if you are driving within the rules of the road, the mood of the other drivers is irrelevant to you. You have absolutely no obligation to break the rules just to please motorists around you and I would would urge anyone not to do such a thing.

If you are unable to keep to 50kmph because
it would detract from your general observation of the conditions around you, then you have some serious issues and perhaps being in control of a road vehicle is not for you. Are you implying that you can be more observant of everything around you on an urban road if driving at higher speed whilst still be able to react accordingly as you speed pass traffic, dodge pedestrians and cyclists and all the other hazards urban driving brings? That's just absurd.

Pinch Flat

How about just driving within the limit and avoiding such further notices? Going to court will be a waste of time and money. You've broken a speed limit - there's no defence that's going to stack up.

As regards other motorists, although it is neigh impossible to drive within the speed limit without some tool on your bumper, I've become accustomed to ignoring them. There's no way I'm going to end up with a notice just to try and keep someone behind me happy

Madd Finn

Victor wrote: »

The speed limits are low on the Long Mile Road because there are traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, private entrances and four schools together with the associated pedestrians, cyclists, young people and turning traffic.

This was explained to me by the cop who pulled me over when I expressed my surprise at the low limit. I managed to stifle myself saying "But it's ****ing Saturday!!" (which it was)

Madd Finn

L1011 wrote: »

Your arguments are useless and you'll be lucky to pay less than 250 in court.

You see this is all I wanted. Good practical concise advice.

Feck it I'll just pay the bloody thing and forget about it.

Until the next time. :)

deathtocaptcha

There is no defense here. It's ridiculous to be asking to be excused from speeding. The judge would laugh at the idea of this and also fine you for wasting the courts time.

Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

That's the reason the limit is 50km/hr and not 60km/hr. Also, it's highly likely your speedometer was reading more than 60km/hr as the speedometer in most cars will overestimate your speed by up to 10% for legal reasons (it will never underestimate your speed).

GM228

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

There is no defense here. It's ridiculous to be asking to be excused from speeding. The judge would laugh at the idea of this and also fine you for wasting the courts time.

Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

That's the reason the limit is 50km/hr and not 60km/hr. Also, it's highly likely your speedometer was reading more than 60km/hr as the speedometer in most cars will overestimate your speed by up to 10% for legal reasons (it will never underestimate your speed).

It's an EU directive that the speedo must read above the actual speed AFAIK.

GM228

donalh087

I'm reminded of the Liveline caller who raged at a breath test very close to a pub because it didn't give him a 'fair chance'.

L1011

donalh087 wrote: »

I'm reminded of the Liveline caller who raged at a breath test very close to a pub because it didn't give him a 'fair chance'.

Which shouldn't even happen as they ask how recently you've drunk alcohol as it can create off readings. Knowing Liveline, it probably didn't happen!

Madd Finn

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed

Really?

Where did you get those stats?

I went searching for similar and I found these. Granted they're from America and they're only one study in Florida and they're quite old but the findings are very different from what you say.


It says that 12.5% of pedestrians in single vehicle crashes suffered fatal injuries at speeds estimated between 31 and 35mph (or 49.6 to 56kph) and 22.4% at speeds between 36 and 45mph (or 57.6 to 72kph)

So that's closer to one in five than nine in ten, and it's for a range of speeds that includes velocities much higher than 60kph.

Have you got any conflicting stats or did you just make those ones up?

Pinch Flat

Madd Finn wrote: »

Really?

Where did you get those stats?

"Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 of pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 30km/h, 1 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Source RoSPA UK"
http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/speed-limits/speed-limits_stopping-distances-cars.html

Pretty clear in the link above

Victor

Madd Finn wrote: »

I went searching for similar and I found these. Granted they're from America and they're only one study in Florida and they're quite old but the findings are very different from what you say.

It says that 12.5% of pedestrians in single vehicle crashes suffered fatal injuries at speeds estimated between 31 and 35mph (or 49.6 to 56kph) and 22.4% at speeds between 36 and 45mph (or 57.6 to 72kph).

It may be the difference between travel speeds and impact speeds.

savagethegoat

Pinch Flat wrote: »

"Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 of pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 30km/h, 1 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Source RoSPA UK"
http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/speed-limits/speed-limits_stopping-distances-cars.html

Pretty clear in the link above

that can 't be right..that's 15 out of ten

L1011

Pinch Flat wrote: »

"Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 50km/h, 5 out of 10 of pedestrians will be killed.
Hit by a car at 30km/h, 1 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed.
Source RoSPA UK"
http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-driving/speed-limits/speed-limits_stopping-distances-cars.html

Pretty clear in the link above

That's a secondary source - not a primary one. The ROTR is inaccurate about actual rules from time to time.

I'd be interested if you could find the actual ROSPA source it references

Pinch Flat

L1011 wrote: »

That's a secondary source - not a primary one. The ROTR is inaccurate about actual rules from time to time.

I'd be interested if you could find the actual ROSPA source it references

Quick root around reveals this:


The most recent analysis of the role of vehicle speed in pedestrian fatalities in Great Britain 4, found that 85% of pedestrians killed when struck by cars or car-derived vans, died in collision that occurred at impact speeds below 40mph, 45% at less than 30 mph and 5% at speeds below 20 mph.

Source: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/inappropriate/

L1011

That doesn't mean the same thing at all. Could see the ROTR authors thinking it does though.

Pinch Flat

L1011 wrote: »

That doesn't mean the same thing at all. Could see the ROTR authors thinking it does though.

Yeah who knows - maybe the RSA misquoted. Or I couldn't find the exact reference.

I'm reading it as broadly in line - RSA passage quoted above in brackets - 85% killed at 40mph (90% at 60 kph), 45% less than 30 mph (50% killed at 50kph) and 5% at less than 20 mph (10% at 30kph).

But irrespective of what's quoted above, surely the main argument is that higher speeds (even slightly higher) have the potential to inflict injuries exponentially on a pedestrian?

ezra_pound

L1011 wrote: »

That doesn't mean the same thing at all. Could see the ROTR authors thinking it does though.

It does mean the same thing. What are you saying?

L1011

ezra_pound wrote: »

It does mean the same thing. What are you saying?

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even mean anything vaguely similar.

One claim is that 90% of people hit at 37mph die

One claim is that 85% of people that die were hit at up to 40mph. This includes every figure from 0 (well, 1) to 40.

Without another figure of the totality of vehicle-pedestrian collisions and the speeds each were at you can't even try figure out a relationship there.

Its very easy to read them quickly and think they mean the same thing, which is why I suspect the authors of the ROTR could have done that as fact checking and verification of the actual laws let alone side statistics is nothing something they've done well.

edit: the substantive difference isn't the 37/40 or 85%/90% by the way. Read and re-read the two claims, its easy enough to figure out the difference.

deathtocaptcha

All right you nit pickers... seen as you've all become armchair academics and experts on road fatalities, here's a whitepaper for you to read...

Because I know none of you will read it, I'll highlight the points which obliterate your arguments:

"The UK’s On The Spot (OTS) accident data collection project started in 2000 and continues to investigate 500 crashes per year. Investigations are undertaken minutes after the collision has occurred to gather all the perishable information. At the time of writing over 3,000 crashes involving all road users and all injury severities have been examined"

"It has been observed that a reduction of the speed limit on a road from 60 kph to 50 kph produced a 20 % drop in pedestrian accidents, and a 50 % drop in pedestrian fatalities"

"Further, Ashton and Mackay reported that the boundary car impact speed for the transition from mostly severe to mostly fatal pedestrian casualties was between 50 and 60kph, whereas the OTS dataset shows this change to occur above 60 kph. However, the number of fatal cases in the OTS database above 60kph is very small and this is an important factor to note when presenting the data."

realdanbreen

Madd Finn wrote: »

Got my third fixed penalty notice speeding fine in the post today.

It accuses me, probably accurately, of exceeding the speed limit by doing 60kph in a 50kph area. Or in old money (I drive an old car with speedo in mph) I was doing 37.5mph in a 31.25mph area.

I know that in reality I have broken the law but I'm feeling a little hard done by and I wonder if I'm being seen as a soft touch because I paid the other fines promptly and without fuss.

I don't believe I was driving recklessly. I was keeping to a reasonable speed and frankly to ensure that I never ventured over such a low limit I would either have to drive so slowly as to encourage road rage in other motorists or keep such a close eye on the speedo that it would detract from my general observation of the conditions around me. Neither situation is desirable.

I'm tempted to not pay the FP and take my chances in court where my arguments would be those mentioned above.

Both my other fines were for driving on dual carriageways at about 50mph 80kph in areas where unusually low limits for a dual carriageway pertained.

Anybody any experience in contesting such charges in court?

I won't respond to finger waggers who say "Serves you right. Don't break the law" (Tell me something I don't know)

Nor am I looking for any bastard's sympathy. Just some frank advice, hopefully based on experience, of whether it would be worth the effort.

I CAN afford to pay the €80 FP but I'm just in a "**** it let 'em work for it" mood.


My two other FP fines (none of the penalty points still valid) were for driving at fairly normal speeds for a dual carriageway on parts where the speed limit was unusually low. eg 50mph (back in 2003) on the 30mph limit area of the Long Mile Road, and a similar indiscretion on the outer reaches of the Navan Road.

My own view would be that the more times that you are caught the higher the fine should be. You have been fined three times which I would imagine means that you are speeding on a regular basis and only get caught a fraction of the time. You need to wise up before you injure somebody.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Here's some frank advice - stay off the bloody road until you learn how to drive properly

L1011

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

"It has been observed that a reduction of the speed limit on a road from 60 kph to 50 kph produced a 20 % drop in pedestrian accidents, and a 50 % drop in pedestrian fatalities"

If 9/10 was the original figure for 60kph we're fairly close to the original claim then (50% drop would be 6), still fairly far off statistically but its close enough. Still need a source for 9/10.

I'm not sure where you're getting any idea that it will "obliterate" arguments from, though.

Madd Finn

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

All right you nit pickers... seen as you've all become armchair academics and experts on road fatalities, here's a whitepaper for you to read...

Because I knownone of you will read it, I'll highlight the points which obliterate your arguments:

You can call people "nitpickers" OR you can allege that none of us will read it but to say both is almost a contradiction.

Thanks for posting that data. I WILL look at it and if I see anything that excites my fancy I will comment later but just to take you up on your allegations of nit picking.

If one is going to analyse statistics then one MUST take a logical approach to what the statistics actually state. Disraeli once said "there are lies, damn lies and statistics". What I think he was highlighting was a) the subtle difference between facts and truth and b) the willingness of some people to take a sloppy approach to stating what are the facts, as opposed to the truth.

L101 was quite right to say that the two statements were really quite different.

The American statistics I quoted (which I pointed out at the time come from ONE study in one state a long time ago) state quite clearly that 12.5% of pedestrians who were hit by cars travelling at speeds between 31 and 35mph suffered fatal injuries.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT THE SAME as saying that 85% of pedestrian WHO WERE KILLED were struck by cars travelling at less than 40mph.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that all those 85 per cent were killed at cars travelling between 31 and 35mph, just to normalise the samples. There would still be no contradiction between the two sets of data. It would only imply that seven times as many pedestrians again were also hit by cars travelling between 31 and 35mph but DIDN'T die.

You say nitpicking, I say stating the facts.



Oh and just as a general point [ie not directed at you] repeated from my original post

Madd Finn wrote:

I won't respond to finger waggers who say "Serves you right. Don't break the law" (Tell me something I don't know)

Nor am I looking for any bastard's sympathy. Just some frank advice, hopefully based on experience,

:p

Pinch Flat

L1011 wrote: »

That's a secondary source - not a primary one. The ROTR is inaccurate about actual rules from time to time.

I'd be interested if you could find the actual ROSPA source it references

This what I love about Boards. Someone decides the reference is not good enough (primary versus secondary) then expects the poster that posted the information to scurry around and try and find the exact ROSPA reference that the RSA used to quote the 90% of figures.

Yet, when you google "Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed", you get refrences to the Gardai who quote this, http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=6609&Lang=1, a medical professional who deals with casualties in road accidents http://rsa.ie/Global/Presentations/Dr%20%C3%81ine%20Carroll's%20presentation.pdf, local authorithy http://www.roadsafetymayo.ie/CausesofCollisions/ and virtually every news article referenceing this statement .Are we to draw a conclusion that they're all wrong?


Edit - And for the real pedants out there, the following link to an ROSPA publication states:

"Research shows that 90% of people hit by vehicles at 40mph die, compared to 20% at 30mph and 2.5% at 20mph."

https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/practitioners/road-media-guide.pdf

L1011

That's still an uncited source. It appears everyone else is quoting that. If it's wrong they're all wrong as a result and they don't show us the research.

Asking someone for a proper source isn't something unexpected. We're attempting to have a facts based debate here, if that requires you to 'scurry' to find actual facts so be it.

Pinch Flat

L1011 wrote: »

That's still an uncited source. It appears everyone else is quoting that. If it's wrong they're all wrong as a result and they don't show us the research.

Asking someone for a proper source isn't something unexpected. We're attempting to have a facts based debate here, if that requires you to 'scurry' to find actual facts so be it.

So you're telling me that all the experts quoted above are wrong and misquoting this? i'm sorry, you're just being downright pedantic now. I'm satisfied that the ROSPA document referenced above, which in turn is referencing their own research, is sufficient to demonstrate this point.

L1011

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So you're telling me that all the experts quoted above are wrong and misquoting this? i'm sorry, you're just being downright pedantic now. I'm satisfied that the ROSPA document referenced above, which in turn is referencing their own research, is sufficient to demonstrate this point.

No. I'm saying they're all quoting one single source which may be wrong.

You clearly have far lower standards for accepting something as evidence than I do. Nothing even hints that ROSPA are citing ROSPA research in that document.

Wanting valid data is not pedantry. Assuming someone is right because you believe them to be "expert" is a bad idea, as is assuming that an organisation has done or even validated all the research it cites. Or doesn't actually cite at all in this case!

Pinch Flat

L1011 wrote: »

No. I'm saying they're all quoting one single source which may be wrong.

In yoir own opinion of course. Do you have special qualifications or a specialism in road safety, higher than for example the medial professional quoted above?

L1011 wrote: »

You clearly have far lower standards for accepting something as evidence than I do. Nothing even hints that ROSPA are citing ROSPA research in that document.

Read the link boae, the ROSPA document identifies the references in the opening page.

L1011 wrote: »

Wanting valid data is not pedantry. Assuming someone is right because you believe them to be "expert" is a bad idea, as is assuming that an organisation has done or even validated all the research it cites. Or doesn't actually cite at all in this case!

No, I see it as pedeantry. Enter "Pedestrian killed at 40mph" int oGoogle and see what it beings back. Are all these reference wrong?

ANyway, http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc/fckeditorFiles/file/Danny%20Dorling%20-%2020mph%20Speed%20Limits%20for%20Cars%20in%20Residential%20Areas%20by%20Shops%20and%20Schools.pdf

PAGE 48 - Source: Richards, D.C (2010) Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car
Occupants, Road Saftey Web Publication No. 16, Department for Transport, London.

That graph illustrares the point pretty clearly. Or maybe they're wrong as well.:rolleyes:

L1011

Pinch Flat wrote: »

In yoir own opinion of course. Do you have special qualifications or a specialism in road safety, higher than for example the medial professional quoted above?

I never said it is wrong. Professionals cite things which turn out to be untrue all the time.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Read the link boae, the ROSPA document identifies the references in the opening page.

I did. It doens't.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

No, I see it as pedeantry. Enter "Pedestrian killed at 40mph" int oGoogle and see what it beings back. Are all these reference wrong?

IF everything is citing one source (which it appears they are) and IF that source is wrong - yes.

You are committing a massive logical fallacy here, the "2,000,000 Americans Can't Be Wrong" one. Just because you find vast numbers of references to a source, or vast numbers saying the same thing doesn't mean its right.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

ANyway, http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/misc/fckeditorFiles/file/Danny%20Dorling%20-%2020mph%20Speed%20Limits%20for%20Cars%20in%20Residential%20Areas%20by%20Shops%20and%20Schools.pdf

PAGE 48 - Source: Richards, D.C (2010) Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car
Occupants, Road Saftey Web Publication No. 16, Department for Transport, London.

That graph illustrares the point pretty clearly. Or maybe they're wrong as well.:rolleyes:

Have you actually read that graph?

It doesn't support your argument.

suggests a fatality rate of ~45% (not 90%) with a margin of error allowance for 20%-70% (still not 90%) for 40mph.

Compare to the value range for 30mph and you don't get the stated difference of 90% to 50% either.

If you read the page before that, it says 50%.

Are you going to rely on your fallacious "ROSPA and the experts say 90 so 90 it is" or this new document that says 50, then?

flossy1

Sorry for changing subject ,could someone tell me if you get two reminders how long before you go to court

L1011

flossy1 wrote: »

Sorry for changing subject ,could someone tell me if you get two reminders how long before you go to court

Summons needs to be created (but not served) within 6 months. Max would normally be a year from the incident.

Pinch Flat

L1011 wrote: »

I never said it is wrong. Professionals cite things which turn out to be untrue all the time.



I did. It doens't.



IF everything is citing one source (which it appears they are) and IF that source is wrong - yes.

You are committing a massive logical fallacy here, the "2,000,000 Americans Can't Be Wrong" one. Just because you find vast numbers of references to a source, or vast numbers saying the same thing doesn't mean its right.



Have you actually read that graph?

It doesn't support your argument.

suggests a fatality rate of ~45% (not 90%) with a margin of error allowance for 20%-70% (still not 90%) for 40mph.

Compare to the value range for 30mph and you don't get the stated difference of 90% to 50% either.

If you read the page before that, it says 50%.

Are you going to rely on your fallacious "ROSPA and the experts say 90 so 90 it is" or this new document that says 50, then?

So to summarize, everyone's wrong except our Johnny. What's your own view on the amount of pedestrians likely to be killed at 40mph / 60kph? is it a lot less than the rest of the world think?

This link puts it at between 83 - 85%, citing two different sources.

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

L1011

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So to summarize, everyone's wrong except our Johnny.

No - to summarise: you don't understand statistics and the need to reference research very well, if at all.

You may want to note - again - that I've never actually said the quotes are wrong. You've invented that yourself to try argue against it. I've said that nobody at all has provided an actual reference and that the sources provided so far have all been irrelevant or mis-cited.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What's your own view on the amount of pedestrians likely to be killed at 40mph / 60kph? is it a lot less than the rest of the world think?

I'd have gone somewhat similar to the research you actually quoted without reading - maybe 50%, and probably about half that at 30mph. That's guesswork, but it appears to be fairly educated guesswork.

The "9 out of 10" 'statistic' (that isn't a statistic) entered peoples minds due to an emotive ad campaign in the UK, not research. It appears that (same source as above) that even in the 1970s before severe changes to vehicle standards were made for pedestrian protection it wasn't even 90% then.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

This link puts it at between 83 - 85%, citing two different sources.

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

One from 1992 that I can't find the actual document for; the other (which is actually citing a source from 1991 that I also can't get the document for - sometimes I wish I was still in college) is inaccurately cited by your source - its 83% at 45mph. (http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/pedspeed/PEDSPEED.PDF)

Please apply some basic research before citing secondary sources as gospel.

Pinch Flat

L1011 wrote: »

I'd have gone somewhat similar to the research you actually quoted without reading - maybe 50%, and probably about half that at 30mph.

Hey look I'm just a random poster here with no particular safety expertise - If it was my full time job to post here or I was preparing an academic paper or research in road safety, yeah sure I'd be reading everything word for word. But I have to say I'm still satisfied that my own search still brings out that 90% of pedestrians are killed at 40 mph / 60 kph. I'd like to see someone put up a strong argument against this.

All this stemmed from your own reluctance to accept a primary reference, requesting a secondary one referenced to be backed up. In truth, I've no idea where the ROSPA reference is - perhaps it's buried in some publication on a server somewhere. Or perhaps write to the RSA and ask for sight of the publication?

L1011 wrote: »

The "9 out of 10" 'statistic' (that isn't a statistic) entered peoples minds due to an ad campaign in the UK, not research. It appears that (same source as above) that even in the 1970s before severe changes to vehicle standards were made for pedestrian protection it wasn't even 90% then.

Ah ok. Have you a link to back this up? :pac:

L1011

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Hey look I'm just a random poster here with no particular safety expertise - If it was my full time job to post here or I was preparing an academic paper or research in road safety, yeah sure I'd be reading everything word for word. But I have to say I'm still satisfied that my own search still brings out that 90% of pedestrians are killed at 40 mph / 60 kph. I'd like to see someone put up a strong argument before this.

You can satisfy yourself all you want based on search results, but its hideous scientific practice. You can find yourself lots and lots of things in search results that are completely untrue. I'm pretty sure you can satisfy yourself that Prince is down a few ribs, Marc Almond had his stomach pumped and Richard Gere does unspeakable things with gerbils based on search results.

When you get in to fallacious beliefs its even worse. Snopes only covers pop culture beliefs but take a quick look through there and see how much of it you can find enough "data" in a search to "support".

Pinch Flat wrote: »

All this stemmed from your own reluctance to accept a primary reference, requesting a secondary one referenced to be backed up.

Nobody has ever provided a primary source for the 90%, as yet. I asked for a primary source as someone was citing a known poor secondary source. This is normal practice.

You don't seem to understand what primary and secondary sources actually mean.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

In truth, I've no idea where the ROSPA reference is - perhaps it's buried in some publication on a server somewhere. Or perhaps write to the RSA and ask for sight of the publication?

The likelyhood is the RSA were "satisfied by their own search" that threw up lots of non cited results. The ROTR is full of inaccuracies.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah ok. Have you a link to back this up? :pac:

The reference is in text you linked to earlier, as I said in my post!!

If you don't want to actually read what you're using as references why are you continuing to use them?

Madd Finn

Pinch Flat wrote: »

This what I love about Boards. Someone decides the reference is not good enough (primary versus secondary) then expects the poster that posted the information to scurry around and try and find the exact ROSPA reference that the RSA used to quote the 90% of figures.

Er no. I asked you where you got those figures from because my first search for similar figures presented hard statistical data which challenged them. If you want to state something as a fact, you should be expected to back it up. The more certain you are to begin with, the less "scurrying round" you have to do to vindicate yourself.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yet, when you google "Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed", you get refrences to the Gardai who quote this, http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=6609&Lang=1, a medical professional who deals with casualties in road accidents http://rsa.ie/Global/Presentations/Dr%20%C3%81ine%20Carroll's%20presentation.pdf, local authorithy http://www.roadsafetymayo.ie/CausesofCollisions/ and virtually every news article referenceing this statement .Are we to draw a conclusion that they're all wrong?

Ever watched the program QI? A widely believed "fact" can often be a misunderstanding, a false truism or just a plain lie. I bet that statement would be one of the things that would result in the alarm going off and another massive set of negative points for Alan Davies.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Edit - And for the real pedants out there, the following link to an ROSPA publication states:

"Research shows that 90% of people hit by vehicles at 40mph die, compared to 20% at 30mph and 2.5% at 20mph."

Fair enough. And other research flatly contradicts it. That's not pedantry. That's just pointing out facts.

Pinch Flat

L1011 wrote: »

Nobody has ever provided a primary source for the 90%, as yet. I asked for a primary source as someone was citing a known poor secondary source. This is normal practice.

You don't seem to understand what primary and secondary sources actually mean.

Sorry I didn't realize this was a personal campaign of yours - to find this elusive 90% figure. And lets not start the insults - I'm pretty familiar with Primary and Secondary sources from my own academic days.:rolleyes:

L1011

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Sorry I didn't realize this was a personal campaign of yours - to find this elusive 90% figure.

Its not a campaign - its a request that something stated is backed up. Nothing more.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

And lets not start the insults - I'm pretty familiar with Primary and Secondary sources from my own academic days.:rolleyes:

You managed to confuse the two of them in a reply to me not ten minutes ago; and kept citing secondary sources when asked for primary. That's either a case of not understanding them or deliberately being obstructive.

Pinch Flat

L1011 wrote: »

Its not a campaign - its a request that something stated is backed up. Nothing more.

You managed to confuse the two of them in a reply to me not ten minutes ago; and kept citing secondary sources when asked for primary. That's either a case of not understanding them or deliberately being obstructive.

Ah look cool the jets. So in hind sight, the answer when requested for the primary source would be "I don't know. I didn't write the Rules of the Road, and I've no idea about the ROSPA document referenced within them. But many refernces on line state that 90% of pedestrians are killed by cars travelling at 40mph / 60kph - and these are cited by medical professionals, road saferty campaigners and other people more expert than I in road safety". So I tried to back up my argument, rather clumsily and hastily. And for that I'm truly sorry.

Madd Finn

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah look cool the jets. So in hind sight, .....I tried to back up my argument, rather clumsily and hastily. And for that I'm truly sorry.

That's what you get for arguing with pedants!

Never bring a vague impression to a stats fight