nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Speeding causes less than 9% of two vehicle road crashes

I.S.T.

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)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zubeneschamali

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It's very rare that speed would be listed as the primary cause of an accident.

That's because it's very rare that speed is the primary cause of an accident.

Dangerous overtaking, drink-driving and passing a stop sign are not speed. it is perfectly possible to speed every time you drive without doing any of those things.

dr.fuzzenstein

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's because it's very rare that speed is the primary cause of an accident.

Dangerous overtaking, drink-driving and passing a stop sign are not speed. it is perfectly possible to speed every time you drive without doing any of those things.

You get burned at the stake these days for saying that!;)
And, furthermore, it is perfectly possible to maim and kill people within the speed limit.
But it is easier to pacify the "won't somebody please think of the children" brigade with a few empty catchphrases, platitudes, banging the table a bit and having more cash cameras out there.
Then the moronic masses will think "ooh, he's great, he Gets Things Done and Puts His Foot Down!"
No one is interested in an intelligent solution, so prepare for more "Speed Kills!", more cameras and possibly more Gardai (though I don't see them doing that much), so the thinking classes will have to sort it out amongst themselves again through intelligence and common sense.
Yes, that still exists, goes mostly unnoticed and rarely gets mentioned.
So best to just ignore the hysteria and (as Homer Simpson once said) Stop Being So Unsafe!

MagicSean

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's because it's very rare that speed is the primary cause of an accident.

Dangerous overtaking, drink-driving and passing a stop sign are not speed. it is perfectly possible to speed every time you drive without doing any of those things.

Did you even read it? He went through the stop sign because he was going too fast to stop. In the overtaking one he had to overtake because he was going too fast to slow down before hitting the car in front. Excessive speed will increase the risk of any maneouver performed. It also reduces the ability to respond to unexpected obstacles. It also increases the damage caused in any collision.

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

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

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

Did I?

Try this one: http://www.trg.dk/elvik/740-2004.pdf

I.S.T.

zuutroy wrote: »

Surely that should be available under Freedom of Information?

Gardaí are exempt from FOI requests.

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.

The Gardaí hold the stats on the speed cameras, where they are located, how many offenders each one detects, etc. Those are the stats we want. We can't get them.

Iwannahurl

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

it's very rare that speed is the primary cause of an accident.

"Very rare"? How is that defined?

Published evidence please. Publication references, links etc.

We've already seen the table with the 32 fatalities etc, so something more substantial and generalisable is required.

challengemaster

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

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.

Or, just maybe I'm able to think for myself and came to my own conclusions?

And funnily enough, if you were to eliminate the primary cause of an accident, you wouldn't have an accident, would you? Therefore the effect speed has on the outcome is irrelavent.

I'm aware that while accidents occur this isn't the case and speed is a FACTOR in the outcome, but people really need to stop following the RSA train of "speed kills".

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.

That's like ringing Eircom and asking are UPC better. Of course it's in their interest not to tell you, so you're going to get a biased (aka. false) answer

MagicSean

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Gardaí are exempt from FOI requests.

The Gardaí hold the stats on the speed cameras, where they are located, how many offenders each one detects, etc. Those are the stats we want. We can't get them.

The locations are published. Why would it matter how many tickets are issued in each area? Sure all that would matter is wether the camera is located in an area with a history of serious or fatal crashes?

Iwannahurl

polyfusion wrote: »

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?

Well spotted.

In 2007 there were 81 pedestrian deaths.

In the spirit of this thread, we can therefore confidently conclude that 1.2% of all pedestrian fatalities occur at sea.

Zubeneschamali

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Sure all that would matter is wether the camera is located in an area with a history of serious or fatal crashes?

It also matters how long ago the accidents occurred. There are places on the Garda map where deaths occurred, the council or NRA improved the road (possibly because of the deaths), and that the road is now much safer.

On a safer road, drivers tend to travel faster, making that stretch ideal for a safety van.

I.S.T.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The locations are published. Why would it matter how many tickets are issued in each area? Sure all that would matter is wether the camera is located in an area with a history of serious or fatal crashes?

We want to know how much revenue is generated at each camera location. We also want to know the accident rate at the camera location prior to introduction of the camera, and in the time after it was introduced.

MagicSean

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

We want to know how much revenue is generated at each camera location. We also want to know the accident rate at the camera location prior to introduction of the camera, and in the time after it was introduced.

Again why does the amount of revenue matter if all you are concerned about is having them in necessary locations?

MagicSean

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It also matters how long ago the accidents occurred. There are places on the Garda map where deaths occurred, the council or NRA improved the road (possibly because of the deaths), and that the road is now much safer.

On a safer road, drivers tend to travel faster, making that stretch ideal for a safety van.

Could you point to a location where a serious or fatal accident occurred as a result of road conditions which have been dramatically upgraded? The only time I've ever seen road conditions be possibly responsable for a collisions was during snow.

challengemaster

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Could you point to a location where a serious or fatal accident occurred as a result of road conditions which have been dramatically upgraded? The only time I've ever seen road conditions be possibly responsable for a collisions was during snow.

New motorways bypassing older, lesser quality roads for one. The old roads still exist and have the accident toll, but they aren't used half as much. This would also provide false stats which could be used to promote the use of these cameras.

MagicSean

challengemaster wrote: »

New motorways bypassing older, lesser quality roads for one. The old roads still exist and have the accident toll, but they aren't used half as much. This would also provide false stats which could be used to promote the use of these cameras.

And the speed traps are located on the old, still dangerous, road and not the new safer motorway.

Captain Chaos

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Speeding kills. End of.

It's the sudden stop I would have thought myself.

overshoot

here look can we just divide speed into suitable and unsuitable for the purposes of the thread. it is impossible to have some sort of life let alone cars without speed. my grandfather died after he fell while walking... speed kills surely? if he was in his armchair it wouldnt have happened:rolleyes:
im sure anyone here has enough cop on to realise speed limits do not always equal a safe speed and there are plenty on N roads bettered by R roads around yet the N has a higher limit

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Did I?

Try this one: http://www.trg.dk/elvik/740-2004.pdf

You asked for published reports/evidence, I gave you some, and you refuse to comment or debate on it.

Definitely a troll.

I won't bother pointing out the parts of the study that have been proven wrong in the UK stats, or that the study agrees that on average, higher speed limits have lower accident rates because the roads tend to be better etc, because you have zero interest in learning anything new.

Zubeneschamali

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

And the speed traps are located on the old, still dangerous, road and not the new safer motorway.

I got done on the Motorway. (Not by a van, though, by a guy with a hairdryer).

GreeBo

Speed doesnt cause accidents, it just makes them worse.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesnt cause accidents, but again makes the outcome worse.

Are those of you on here who are against preventing speeding also against wearing seatbelts?

Tragedy

GreeBo wrote: »

Speed doesnt cause accidents, it just makes them worse.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesnt cause accidents, but again makes the outcome worse.

Are those of you on here who are against preventing speeding also against wearing seatbelts?

When you can understand the difference between speed and speeding, try that argument again.

For your argument to be logically correct, it should be as follows:
Any speed above 0 = worse accidents
No seatbelt = worse accidents
People against stopping people driving at any speed are equivalent to people against wearing seatbelts.

Do you see how stupid that is?
Yes.

Atomic Pineapple

GreeBo wrote: »

Speed doesnt cause accidents, it just makes them worse.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesnt cause accidents, but again makes the outcome worse.

Are those of you on here who are against preventing speeding also against wearing seatbelts?

I think it's the manner in which the government are trying to prevent speeding that is the issue, not that people are against preventing it.

I.S.T.

GreeBo wrote: »

Are those of you on here who are against preventing speeding also against wearing seatbelts?

We're not against preventing speeding. We're against preventing speeding on safe roads taking a priority over preventing speeding on dangerous roads.

MagicSean

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

We're not against preventing speeding. We're against preventing speeding on safe roads taking a priority over preventing speeding on dangerous roads.

Which you have yet to prove happens in any way shape or form.

challengemaster

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

And the speed traps are located on the old, still dangerous, road and not the new safer motorway.

The vans aren't, but where do you think they relocated all those traffic corps speed traps to now there's a van sitting in their usual money earning spot?

My point was - It's all well and good claiming that road deaths on X road have dropped since the cameras were implemted, but it's redundant statement if most of the traffic isn't using the road anymore. Yes, they dropped, but you can't claim it had anything to do with the cameras.

Using a very basic and obviously not-real example - If there were 20 deaths on the road before, yet there's only 15 cars driving on the road now, obviously the deaths will fall. It doesn't matter if you put landmines on the road, there'll still be less than 20 deaths.

Iwannahurl

GreeBo wrote: »

Speed doesnt cause accidents, it just makes them worse.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesnt cause accidents, but again makes the outcome worse.

Are those of you on here who are against preventing speeding also against wearing seatbelts?

Unlike seatbelts, higher speed increases both the risk and severity of collisions.

That's why measures to reduce average speed, including speed surveillance, are important and effective road safety interventions.

challengemaster

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Unlike seatbelts, higher speed increases both the risk and severity of collisions.

That's why measures to reduce average speed, including speed surveillance, are important and effective road safety interventions.

Pre-emtive measures are far more effective than someone getting a fine from a van hidden in a ditch somewhere that they didn't see. If you really wanted to slow people down over a certain area, there's better ways to do it - ones which don't involve revenue generation, which is why they'll never be used.

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

You asked for published reports/evidence, I gave you some, and you refuse to comment or debate on it.

Definitely a troll.

I won't bother pointing out the parts of the study that have been proven wrong in the UK stats, or that the study agrees that on average, higher speed limits have lower accident rates because the roads tend to be better etc, because you have zero interest in learning anything new.

"Troll" -- the evidence-dodger's favourite get-out clause.

I'm always interested in hearing of new research findings, especially evidence that genuinely challenges the status quo.

Unfortunately, the chances of finding such material, or any rational discussion of it, in this thread (or indeed in any Boards thread on the topic) are slim to none.

Iwannahurl

challengemaster wrote: »

Pre-emtive measures are far more effective than someone getting a fine from a van hidden in a ditch somewhere that they didn't see. If you really wanted to slow people down over a certain area, there's better ways to do it - ones which don't involve revenue generation, which is why they'll never be used.

What are those measures, and what comparative studies have been conducted?

Iwannahurl

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

We're not against preventing speeding.

Yes you are.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056367300