Speeding causes less than 9% of two vehicle road crashes

Welease · 21-09-2011 09:32PM

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Hi All,

I was just reading through the RSA Road Collision Report 2009 and notice that "Exceeded safe speed" is responsible for less than 9% of all crashes. "Went to wrong side of the road" is the highest cause at 32% followed by "Drove through stop/yield sign" at 20%. Why then all the focus on speeding and speed cameras? Wouldn't we save more lives by teaching people to obey stop/yield signs? Any comments?

(See attachment for stats from the report)

I didn't bother to read the previous posts...

But ...did you look at the stats you posted?

2 people died by Driving through Stop/Yield signs..
8 people died by exceeding safe speed...

How would we save more lives by diverting focus to issues which have caused 4x times less fatal crashes?

cyclopath2001 · 21-09-2011 09:43PM

draffodx wrote: »

Education and re-education would deal with discipline in most drivers. Lessons learnt from points are short lived at best. And all it does is slow people down for a while, not improve their driving.

Unless the education includes community service attendandance at RTAs or witnessing painful A&E procedures as bits of cars are removed from peoples bodies, I think additional penalty points, increased insurance premia and eventual disqualification will slow people down.

draffodx wrote: »

I believe it is pointless to present it for a topic of conversation on an internet forum as it can easily be "skewed" to suit one or the other point of view.

The topic itself, as presented, misrepresents the reasons why we need to control road speeds.

slimjimmc · 21-09-2011 10:39PM

Nissan doctor wrote: »

But if two cars are perfectly safely doing 90kmh on a straight national road and one falls asleep or whatever and veers to the wrong side, then the impact will be 180kmh, very likely resulting in deaths. But to say speed was a factor in that accident is silly as neither were speeding.

So to prevent a death in that accident, the speed limit would have to be 20-25kmh so that any possible head on impact would be limited to 40-50kmh? That's just ridiculous IMO.

If we are to get into obscure arguments...then why not say all the road deaths are the governments fault? The government have not provided proper driver education or testing standards and are now blaming and penalising motorists for the resulting accidents.

Building site foremen/company owners etc get fined or worse if proper training has not been provided to a worker who injures/kills himself so whats the difference?

It is incorrect to add the speeds of both vehicles in a head-on collision and say the impact is equal to the sum of the speeds. As far as each car is concerned a head-on collision at 20kmh with another car is equivalent to a 20kmh head-on collision with a tree. Differences such as mass, velocity, structural rigidity and impact vector will have a minor effect though.

It has no basis in physics and has been disproved.
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html
Mythbusters episode

Absurdum · 21-09-2011 11:02PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How can they generate revenue from people obeying the rules?

that's exactly what the speed camera operators/overlords should be aiming for - zero revenue

I'd bet my shirt that if they weren't pulling in the €'s in one location, they'd be moved somewhere else.

dharn · 21-09-2011 11:06PM

its not speeding that will kill you, it is stopping suddenly !!

Welease · 21-09-2011 11:09PM

Absurdum wrote: »

I'd bet my shirt that if they weren't pulling in the €'s in one location, they'd be moved somewhere else.

But doesn't that mean that they are targetting the areas where more people are breaking the law?

challengemaster · 21-09-2011 11:20PM

Welease wrote: »

But doesn't that mean that they are targetting the areas where more people are breaking the law?

Breaking the law and doing a safe speed are two massively unrelated things.

There's a dual carraigeway in Galway that has a 50km/h limit on it

Here

But this road has an 80km/h limit on it

Here

Which do you think is more likely to cause a crash - doing 54km/h on the dual carraigeway above, or doing 80km/h on the back road?

Welease · 21-09-2011 11:27PM

challengemaster wrote: »

Breaking the law and doing a safe speed are two massively unrelated things.

There's a dual carraigeway in Galway that has a 50km/h limit on it

Here

But this road has an 80km/h limit on it

Here

Which do you think is more likely to cause a crash - doing 54km/h on the dual carraigeway above, or doing 80km/h on the back road?

I am fully aware of the rediculous speed limits in Ireland.. Ouside my house is a 1 lane road with an 80Km speed limit (similar to the one you posted).. whereas the main road is 60Km..
In many many cases they make no sense.. But, until changed they are the legal limit for that road.

But.. the point was in answer to the previous post, so must be taken in that context...

The revenue is being generated because thats where the laws are being broken.. The poster stated it would be moved if revenue dropped.. It likely would be, as that would be an indication that less people were breaking the law..

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with speed cameras, I was pointing out the logic to the previous poster.

SV · 21-09-2011 11:30PM

dharn wrote: »

its not speeding that will kill you, it is stopping suddenly !!

but do you think my suggestion for marshmallow crash barriers was taken seriously? Nope.

Iwannahurl · 21-09-2011 11:58PM

slimjimmc wrote: »

It is incorrect to add the speeds of both vehicles in a head-on collision and say the impact is equal to the sum of the speeds. As far as each car is concerned a head-on collision at 20kmh with another car is equivalent to a 20kmh head-on collision with a tree. Differences such as mass, velocity, structural rigidity and impact vector will have a minor effect though.

It has no basis in physics and has been disproved.
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html
Mythbusters episode

I wonder whether this has ever been discussed in a Boards thread? I'll bet it would make for quite a divisive argument!

In an idealised situation where both colliding bodies just happen to be identical, then this is true in a pure Physics sense.

However, real life is never like that. If I was to be involved in a head-on collision between, say, a Hummer and a Smart car, both travelling at the same speed, I know which vehicle I'd prefer to be in. The Hummer has much greater mass (four times as much?), and will be slowed to some degree but not stopped when it hits the Smart car. The Smart car, on the other hand, will abruptly decelerate to zero and then be rapidly accelerated in the opposite direction up to the speed the Hummer is still travelling at. That would be like hitting the tree at a much higher speed. If I was travelling in the Smart car I'd prefer to hit a tree rather than a Hummer at the same speed.

Iwannahurl · 22-09-2011 12:02AM

SV wrote: »

but do you think my suggestion for marshmallow crash barriers was taken seriously? Nope.

Marshmallow cars would be better.

Nissan doctor · 22-09-2011 12:53AM

slimjimmc wrote: »

It is incorrect to add the speeds of both vehicles in a head-on collision and say the impact is equal to the sum of the speeds. As far as each car is concerned a head-on collision at 20kmh with another car is equivalent to a 20kmh head-on collision with a tree. Differences such as mass, velocity, structural rigidity and impact vector will have a minor effect though.

It has no basis in physics and has been disproved.
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html
Mythbusters episode

Post #58 in this thread has already answered this...

"From that link:

"Although the total force was doubled by having two cars"

The theory of that article only applies if both cars were doing precisely 90kmh and were both of precisely the same mass etc. If one car is doing 100kmh and the other was doing 20kmh, newtons third law says that the people in the car that was doing 20kmh would have the vast majority of the force transferred to them, meaning they would come off worse."

cyclopath2001 · 22-09-2011 06:44AM

challengemaster wrote: »

Which do you think is more likely to cause a crash - doing 54km/h on the dual carraigeway above, or doing 80km/h on the back road?

You've fallen for IrishSpeedTrap's flawed reasoning where he tries to mislead people into an argument based solely on the primary cause of accidents whilst ignoring the effect of speed on the outcome of an accident.

Victor · 22-09-2011 06:52AM

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I was just reading through the RSA Road Collision Report 2009 and notice that "Exceeded safe speed" is responsible for less than 9% of all crashes. "Went to wrong side of the road" is the highest cause at 32% followed by "Drove through stop/yield sign" at 20%. Why then all the focus on speeding and speed cameras? Wouldn't we save more lives by teaching people to obey stop/yield signs? Any comments?

That table only refers to two vehicle collisions and excludes single vehicle, single vehicle v pedestrian and mutli-vehicle collisions. I would think a lot of the people on the wrong side of the road would be one that were over-taking and hence speed is also a factor.

Notably, cause of a collision is only one factor - you also need to consider severity of accident. Take two scenarios:

(a) Adam drives through a junction at 50km/h and T-bones another vehicle.
(b) Bob drives through a junction at 100km/h and T-bones another vehicle.

Which accident is more likely to be severe? A scientist will tell you that Bob's vehicle has 4 times the energy that Adam's has. A statistician that has studied traffic collisions will tell you that the damage will likely be 8-16 times worse.

Nissan doctor wrote: »

German autbahns in many cases have no speed limits and they are among the lowest accident/fatality roads in europe.

Many Autobahns actually do have speed limits and learning to drive is taken seriously in Germany. Table 53 here: http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/2009_Road_Collision_Fact_Book.pdf indicates that Germany has a similar rate of road traffic deaths to Ireland. Do you have any indication that German motorways are hugely safer than Irish or other motorways?

There has to be limits of course, but current limits, braking distances etc etc are based on car abilities and information from the 60's.

Many Irish driving abilities are also still stuck in the 1960s.

Atomic Pineapple · 22-09-2011 10:44AM

Scotty # wrote: »

I doubt it. I know most, if not all drivers, know it is illegal to use a mobile while driving and yet I see hundreds doing it everyday. Driving over the speed limit, the use of lanes, (as is being advertised on TV at the moment). People do actually know the rules of the road for the most part. Education does not mean compliance - unfortunately. Knor does penalisation - but it helps.

Most drivers though have their license from before any sort of decent testing was brought in, I know some people who have never taken a driving lesson let alone a test and yet have full licenses.

Also by education and re-education I mean a full reworking of the way we teach people to drive. Much more regulation on what must be thought in lessons, skid pans introduced, proper purpose built areas built to teach people how to drive on back roads, normal national roads and motorways. Proper college night course style classes to teach people about the rules of the road, observing and adjusting to conditions and road types and what happens when it goes wrong.

People know the rules of the road but they aren't educated in them, motorway lane threads on here highlight the amount of people who know they should stay in the left lane but don't because they aren't capable of merging in and out of lanes properly.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Unless the education includes community service attendandance at RTAs or witnessing painful A&E procedures as bits of cars are removed from peoples bodies, I think additional penalty points, increased insurance premia and eventual disqualification will slow people down.

A more realistic approach would be to teach people about the consequences of bad driving.

Of course it will slow people down, through fear rather than a willingness to drive better. Do you really think that is the best we can come up with?

zuutroy · 22-09-2011 12:04PM

Nissan doctor wrote: »

Post #58 in this thread has already answered this...

"From that link:

"Although the total force was doubled by having two cars"

The theory of that article only applies if both cars were doing precisely 90kmh and were both of precisely the same mass etc. If one car is doing 100kmh and the other was doing 20kmh, newtons third law says that the people in the car that was doing 20kmh would have the vast majority of the force transferred to them, meaning they would come off worse."

Newton's Third Law in fact states that they both exert exactly the same force on each other. Who comes off worse has to do with momentum and the impulse (duration for which the force acts) of the collision.

MagicSean · 22-09-2011 12:33PM

You don't appear to have answered my question IrishSpeedTraps. You say you are only against speed traps that are placed in revenue making positions as opposed to those that provide safety. Do your apps only show those in revenue making spots or do they show all of them?

I.S.T. · 22-09-2011 12:50PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

You don't appear to have answered my question IrishSpeedTraps. You say you are only against speed traps that are placed in revenue making positions as opposed to those that provide safety. Do your apps only show those in revenue making spots or do they show all of them?

It shows the most frequently reported locations. We don't know which spots are revenue making and which are not. We have asked for these stats but the Guards won't release them.

zuutroy · 22-09-2011 12:52PM

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

It shows the most frequently reported locations. We don't know which spots are revenue making and which are not. We have asked for these stats but the Guards won't release them.

Surely that should be available under Freedom of Information?

Tragedy · 22-09-2011 01:00PM

Scotty # wrote: »

...but speed is still a factor in 100% of cases! The outcome of ALL collisions is determined by the speed that one or more of the vehicles was travelling. That's a fact.

Lower speed generally means less severe impact, less injuries, and so on. Regardless of whether that speed was within the limit or not.

Do you not understand what "contributor to cause of" means? All accidents involve speed, even a two year old gets that.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

References and links to some key reports please (but not to the Daily Mail or Telegraph, thank you).

You argued that international research/evidence shows that a majority of accidents are caused by speeding.

References and links to some key reports please.

UK DfT Road Casualties Great Britain:
2009: Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 38 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2009. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 36 per cent of fatal accidents.
Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 17 per cent of fatalities. At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 13 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 27 per cent of all fatalities.

2008: Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 37 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2008. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 32 per cent of fatal accidents.
Fourteen per cent of accidents had a speed related contributory factor reported, either exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for conditions. This rose to 24 per cent for fatal accidents, accounting for 25 per cent of all road deaths. Twenty three per cent of fatalities in these accidents were motorcyclists.

I'll find more statistics(including the not so good RSA ones) if you can be bothered to provide some yourself.

MagicSean · 22-09-2011 01:11PM

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

It shows the most frequently reported locations. We don't know which spots are revenue making and which are not. We have asked for these stats but the Guards won't release them.

Why ask the Gardaí? They don't hold the stats in a centralised way. The RSA do. Send a FOI request to the RSA requesting the number of accidents reported in the last five years on each stretch of road covered by speed cameras. But don't be surprised when the stats don't show many revenue makers. All the ones in my area cover spots where there have been serious or fatal accidents.

Atomic Pineapple · 22-09-2011 01:20PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Why ask the Gardaí? They don't hold the stats in a centralised way. The RSA do. Send a FOI request to the RSA requesting the number of accidents reported in the last five years on each stretch of road covered by speed cameras. But don't be surprised when the stats don't show many revenue makers. All the ones in my area cover spots where there have been serious or fatal accidents.

What was the cause of the fatal or serious accidents in that area?

sean1141 · 22-09-2011 01:21PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

All the ones in my area cover spots where there have been serious or fatal accidents.

they are on a section of road between mountrath and portlaoise where no one can remember there being a fatal crash in the last 15 years. a few small tips yes but nothing where anyone was seriously injured. the van is often there yet just out out side portlaoise on a stretch of road where 6 people were killed there is no camera van

Nissan doctor · 22-09-2011 01:36PM

This whole 'speed involved in 100% of accidents' rubbish in this thread is starting to get silly.
Yes the cars have to be moving in order to have an accident in the first place, there is no intelligence required to understand that, but speed limits and road rules, like most such regulations, are designed to account for the most inept apes in society so if an accident has occurred, and both cars were doing less then the speed limit and a safe speed for the conditions, then speed was NOT a factor!

Saying speed was involved simply because both cars were moving is beyond ridiculous.

As I said earlier, the ground would not be classed as a contributing factor to you being pushed off a building and killed, or gravity is never reported as being partially responsible for a plane crash so how can saying that because the car was moving, that movement contributed to the accident be considered a valid, intelligent argument?:rolleyes:

MagicSean · 22-09-2011 01:41PM

draffodx wrote: »

What was the cause of the fatal or serious accidents in that area?

Speed was a factor in four of the last five I can think of. But it was not listed as the primary cause in three. For example, a person travelling too fast to stop at a junction but the cause was listed as failing to stop at a stop sign. A drink driver speeding through a junction but the primary cause is drink driving. A person overtaking at high speed but the primary cause is dangerous overtaking. The fourth one was just speed, and on a national route. The fifth was mechanical fault. They are just the ones I can remember off hand. It's very rare that speed would be listed as the primary cause of an accident.

sean1141 wrote: »

they are on a section of road between mountrath and portlaoise where no one can remember there being a fatal crash in the last 15 years. a few small tips yes but nothing where anyone was seriously injured. the van is often there yet just out out side portlaoise on a stretch of road where 6 people were killed there is no camera van

I'm afraid I don't know the area that well so I don't know it's history. I do know that before the motorway was extended the stretch of road between Port Laoise and Mountrath was very incredibly and not very well maintained and it was not unusual to see some random maniac overtaking people for no reason.

sean1141 · 22-09-2011 01:51PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't know the area that well so I don't know it's history. I do know that before the motorway was extended the stretch of road between Port Laoise and Mountrath was very incredibly and not very well maintained and it was not unusual to see some random maniac overtaking people for no reason.

unfortunatly i do.. i also knew the 6 that were killed. im not saying the van shouldnt be on the section it is on but why its not also on the section where these people were killed.
they are only starting to repair the road next week. there were sections of it very bad and its not unusual to see a car on the wrong side of the road to avoid some of the dips and holes. that reminds me when the roadworks were being done on the old cork/dublin road outside portlaoise the camera van was there 24 hours a day doing people who went over the roadworks speed limit.

Scotty # · 22-09-2011 01:53PM

Nissan doctor wrote: »

As I said earlier, the ground would not be classed as a contributing factor to you being pushed off a building and killed, or gravity is never reported as being partially responsible for a plane crash so how can saying that because the car was moving, that movement contributed to the accident be considered a valid, intelligent argument?:rolleyes:

If you could control gravity or could control where the ground was then maybe we would be discussing that. As we can't - we aren't. Your speed while driving is under your control (stating the obvious here again I know but it seems to be necessary). That, and the fact that your speed is the single most important influence on the outcome of the collision, is maybe, just maybe, why the RSA 'focus' a lot on speed in their campaigns which, after all, was the OP's question was it not?

pippip · 22-09-2011 01:54PM

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

Lists accidents of varying degrees from 2005 - 2009

MagicSean · 22-09-2011 02:02PM

pippip wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

Lists accidents of varying degrees from 2005 - 2009

Very useful.

polyfusion · 22-09-2011 02:06PM

pippip wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

Lists accidents of varying degrees from 2005 - 2009

Thanks for the link, but I'm curious to how in 2007 a pedestrian fatality occurred about 10kms off the Cork coast? Crushed by a shifting car on a ferry perhaps?

Speeding causes less than 9% of two vehicle road crashes

Comments