 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / January 2008Road fatalities 2006
Contributory factor reported in accident Deaths [Road environment contributed 327] Poor or defective road surface 24 Deposit on road (eg. oil, mud, chippings) 30 Slippery road (due to weather) 165 Inadequate or masked signs or road markings 16 Defective traffic signals 3 Traffic calming (eg. speed cushions, road humps, chicanes) 3 Temporary road layout (eg. contraflow) 4 Road layout (eg. bend, hill, narrow carriageway) 99 Animal or object in carriageway 26 [Vehicle defects 89] Tyres illegal, defective or under inflated 44 Defective lights or indicators 7 Defective brakes 20 Defective steering or suspension 7 Defective or missing mirrors 0 Overloaded or poorly loaded vehicle or trailer 17 [Injudicious action 1,015] Disobeyed automatic traffic signal 32 Disobeyed 'Give Way' or 'Stop' sign or markings 52 Disobeyed double white lines 40 Disobeyed pedestrian crossing facility 14 Illegal turn or direction of travel 17 Exceeding speed limit 431 Travelling too fast for conditions 545 Following too close 54 Vehicle travelling along pavement 13 Cyclist entering road from pavement 15 [Driver/rider error or reaction 1,950] Junction overshoot 45 Junction restart (moving off at junction) 30 Poor turn or manoeuvre 379 Failed to signal or misleading signal 14 Failed to look properly 555 Failed to judge other persons path or speed 319 Passing too close to cyclist, horse rider or pedestrian 25 Sudden braking 95 Swerved 176 Loss of control 1,050 [Impairment or distraction 554] Impaired by alcohol 287 Impaired by drugs (illicit or medicinal) 64 Fatigue 78 Uncorrected, defective eyesight 4 Illness or disability, mental or physical 81 Not displaying lights at night or in poor visibility 14 Cyclist wearing dark clothing at night 12 Driver using mobile phone 31 Distraction in vehicle 65 Distraction outside vehicle 22 [Behaviour or inexperience 828] Aggressive driving 276 Careless, reckless or in a hurry 470 Nervous, uncertain or panic 41 Driving too slow for conditions or slow vehicle (eg tractor) 4 Learner or inexperienced driver/rider 162 Inexperience of driving on the left 11 Unfamiliar with model of vehicle 38 [Vision affected 206] Stationary or parked vehicle(s) 29 Vegetation 10 Road layout (eg. bend, winding road, hill crest) 53 Buildings, road signs, street furniture 3 Dazzling headlights 13 Dazzling sun 37 Rain, sleet, snow, or fog 44 Spray from other vehicles 5 Visor or windscreen dirty or scratched 3 Vehicle blind spot 25 [Pedestrian only (casualty or uninjured) 495] Pedestrian crossing road masked by stationary or parked vehicle 46 Pedestrian failed to look properly 297 Pedestrian failed to judge vehicles path or speed 126 Pedestrian wrong use of pedestrian crossing facility 27 Dangerous action in carriageway (eg. playing) 64 Pedestrian impaired by alcohol 123 Pedestrian impaired by drugs (illicit or medicinal) 9 Pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry 82 Pedestrian wearing dark clothing at night 90 Pedestrian disability or illness, mental or physical 52 [Special codes 179] Stolen vehicle 45 Vehicle in course of crime 13 Emergency vehicle on a call 5 Vehicle door opened or closed negligently 3 Other 120 Total number of deaths 2,927 ==================== Speed related deaths: Exceeding speed limit 431 Travelling too fast for conditions 545 Aggressive driving 276 Careless, reckless or in a hurry 470 Loss of control 1,050 Total 2772, or 95% of total are speed related deaths. > Contributory factor reported in accident Deaths > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > [Pedestrian only (casualty or uninjured) 495] > [Special codes 179] > Total number of deaths 2,927 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Total 2772, or 95% of total are speed related deaths. Statistics is not a strong point of yours is it?  SignatureConor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. > Contributory factor reported in accident Deaths <list snipped> > Total 2772, or 95% of total are speed related deaths. Wrong. 100% are speed related. Without movement there is no impact thus there will be no death. >> Contributory factor reported in accident Deaths > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Wrong. 100% are speed related. Without movement there is no impact thus >there will be no death. Good point. >>> Contributory factor reported in accident Deaths >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Good point. So kindly stop posting meaningless crap. > Total number of deaths 2,927 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Total 2772, or 95% of total are speed related deaths. As others have pointed out, 100% of deaths are speed related. Travelling too fast for conditions Aggressive driving Careless Driving Reckless Driving In a hurry ... ... can all be done under the limit, so your percentage is complete rubbish. SignatureMrBitsy Raymond Keattch (Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch@nowhere.com>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Total 2772, or 95% of total are speed related deaths. > As others have pointed out, 100% of deaths are speed related. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ... can all be done under the limit, so your percentage is complete > rubbish. Indeed. Only 431 (14.7%) are _definitely_ above the limit. There's also the slight issue of each incident potentially having multiple causes. So, even from the list Tom gives as "Speed related", one crash may have ticks in "Travelling too fast for conditions" _and_ "Aggressive driving" - which he completely fails to take into account with his over-simplistic analysis. >Raymond Keattch (Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch@nowhere.com>) gurgled >happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Indeed. Only 431 (14.7%) are _definitely_ above the limit. So if speed limits were strictly enforced road death rates would fall by 14.7%. >There's also the slight issue of each incident potentially having >multiple causes. So, even from the list Tom gives as "Speed related", one >crash may have ticks in "Travelling too fast for conditions" _and_ >"Aggressive driving" - which he completely fails to take into account >with his over-simplistic analysis. So if everyone drove calmly and slowly road death rates would fall by up to 95%. >>Raymond Keattch (Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch@nowhere.com>) gurgled >>happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > So if everyone drove calmly and slowly road death rates would fall by > up to 95%. Well, no, not least because the sums don't work properly. If you add up all the subtotals, you end up with 5643, rather than your total of 2927. This can only mean that multiple reasons are noted for individual deaths, unless I'm missing something. Therefore, you can't simply add up some of the individual numbers like you have, and draw those conclusions. Care to add some explanation of how these figures were compiled and how to interpret them, becasue your method is flawed? >>>Raymond Keattch (Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch@nowhere.com>) gurgled >>>happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >I'm missing something. Therefore, you can't simply add up some of the >individual numbers like you have, and draw those conclusions. I used the term "up to". >Care to add some explanation of how these figures were compiled and how to >interpret them, becasue your method is flawed? >>> So if everyone drove calmly and slowly road death rates would fall by >>> up to 95%. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I used the term "up to". Which makes you as guilty of sensationalism and deliberate misleading as your average journalist, who'll use such language to try to make a point with no real evidence. Or why not admit that you didn't check the figures before mouthing off? Tom Crispin (Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>Well, no, not least because the sums don't work properly. If you add up >>all the subtotals, you end up with 5643, rather than your total of 2927. > I used the term "up to". Bwaahahahahahahaha... 1 is "up to" 95% of 2,927. >>Raymond Keattch (Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch@nowhere.com>) gurgled >>happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >So if everyone drove calmly and slowly road death rates would fall by >up to 95%. No, if everyone drove appropriately and accurately they might well fall by that sort of figure - the speed is irrelevant. SignatureIan D >>>Raymond Keattch (Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch@nowhere.com>) gurgled >>>happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >No, if everyone drove appropriately and accurately they might well >fall by that sort of figure - the speed is irrelevant. Not to someone killed by a motorist "In a hurry" >>>>Raymond Keattch (Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch@nowhere.com>) gurgled >>>>happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Not to someone killed by a motorist "In a hurry" No one was *ever* killed by a motorist driving appropriately and accurately, whether in a hurry or not. Engage brain before jerking knee, please. SignatureIan D >>>>> Raymond Keattch (Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch@nowhere.com>) >>>>> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > accurately, whether in a hurry or not. > Engage brain before jerking knee, please. It has not yet been confirmed that TC has been fitted with such a device. || Not to someone killed by a motorist "In a hurry" In a hurry doesn't necessarily mean driving too quickly. It could mean carelessly pulling out at a junction rather than waiting, to save a few seconds for example. SignatureRob >>>> Raymond Keattch (Raymond Keattch <ray.keattch@nowhere.com>) gurgled >>>> happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Not to someone killed by a motorist "In a hurry" It's not the being 'in a hurry' that causes the injuries and deaths. Best wishes all, Dave. TripleS (TripleS <david.knowles@picturesk.net>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> No, if everyone drove appropriately and accurately they might well >>> fall by that sort of figure - the speed is irrelevant. >> Not to someone killed by a motorist "In a hurry" > It's not the being 'in a hurry' that causes the injuries and deaths. Well, yes, it is. The "hurry" is what causes people to not bother looking before they pull out of junctions etc. > TripleS (TripleS <david.knowles@picturesk.net>) gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Well, yes, it is. Well, no, it isn't *necessarily* a problem. > The "hurry" is what causes people to not bother looking before they pull > out of junctions etc. The 'hurry' might lead some people to take inadequate care in such situations, but they might also be careless without being in a hurry. I'm just not happy with the proposition that being in a hurry will necessarily lead to undue risk. So long as we apply appropriate control, discipline and patience, a wish to get somewhere quickly need not create any added danger. It's this business of appropriateness again, and that changes on a moment to moment basis. It's not unusual for me to drive at 90 mph for a spell on a single carriageway A or B road, and then 10 seconds later I could be plodding along at 15 mph behind a tractor, waiting for a suitable opportunity to get past, and then we're off again if we feel like it. If we becomes tense and frustrated when we're anxious to get somewhere quickly, that's a bad sign, and I do agree that safety is likely to get compromised in that case, but it's just something else to guard against. Best wishes all, Dave. Tom Crispin (Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>Indeed. Only 431 (14.7%) are _definitely_ above the limit. > So if speed limits were strictly enforced road death rates would fall by > 14.7%. ITYM "Why are we pissing about putting all the attention on something that's irrelevant to 85.3% of road deaths, ignoring the causes of those completely?" Simple answer? It's lucrative. >>There's also the slight issue of each incident potentially having >>multiple causes. So, even from the list Tom gives as "Speed related", >>one crash may have ticks in "Travelling too fast for conditions" _and_ >>"Aggressive driving" - which he completely fails to take into account >>with his over-simplistic analysis. > So if everyone drove calmly and slowly road death rates would fall by up > to 95%. No. >Tom Crispin (Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>) gurgled >happily, sounding much like they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Simple answer? It's lucrative. Then the simplest way to prevent the spread of safety camera would be to obey the law. If everyone did so the cameras would fail to be lucrative, and as a bonus, road fatalities would fall by up to 14.7%. It's a win-win situation. >>>There's also the slight issue of each incident potentially having >>>multiple causes. So, even from the list Tom gives as "Speed related", [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >No. Tom Crispin (Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>Indeed. Only 431 (14.7%) are _definitely_ above the limit. >>> So if speed limits were strictly enforced road death rates would fall >>> by 14.7%. >>ITYM "Why are we pissing about putting all the attention on something >>that's irrelevant to 85.3% of road deaths, ignoring the causes of those >>completely?" >> >>Simple answer? It's lucrative. > Then the simplest way to prevent the spread of safety camera would be to > obey the law. If everyone did so the cameras would fail to be > lucrative, and as a bonus, road fatalities would fall by up to 14.7%. No, they'd lower the limits and tighten the tolerances until it was lucrative again. You may like to have a little read up on the Nottingham ring road. Plod bemoaned - publicly, loudly - that the cameras were too effective, so they weren't covering costs. Incidents would probably INCREASE, because everybody'd be focussing solely on their speed instead of their surroundings. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.