Anti-Speed Camera Petition

[titaniumbean]

FWIW I hate poorly placed speed camers, I am in no way against AVERAGE SPEED CAMERAS in areas around schools etc.

[TightPaulFolds]

Your argument is fundamentally flawed (aimed at TightPaulFolds)

Breaking the speed limit is NOT inherently dangerous.  Driving at 'excessive speed' IS dangerous.

You have not made one argument, or shown any empirical data that shows that speed cameras reduce the number of accidents in which people are seriously injured or killed.  The reason is that the evidence doesn't exist.  In fact, quite the opposite - and yes there is data to support that and I've posted it on here before.

If you're driving at 70mph in a 70mph zone it doesn't mean you're driving safely.  If you're doing 30mph in a 30 zone, again it doesn't mean it's safe.  The focus on speed neglects the cause of 97% of accidents on UK roads (again that's from studies, and I can dig out and post the links again if you want).  Your argument about the dangerous bend on a 70mph zone reinforces the point against an arbitrary speed limit making that section of road safe.  If it's wet, if you're drunk, if you're putting your make-up on, eating a sandwich, on your mobile (without handsfree), arguing with the missus, etc., you're increasing the danger in driving along that stretch of road.  If you're doing 69mph does that immediately make it safe? 

Oh, and doing 40mph in a 30mph residential area is obviously excessive speed.  Doing 30mph in a residential area if often excessive speed, the speed limit doesn't make it safe.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



Link pls, i'm in a ranty arsey mood so would like a read.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

I have been reading this http://www.ukroads.org/ukroadsafety/articlespapers/tomorrowsroadssaferforeveryone.pdf

The government cite research that shows that "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps kill around 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads."

This seems very at odds with the 5% figure cited in the link you quoted. Why do you think there is such a big discrepancy?

SPEEDING does not mean SPEED.

SPEEDING (going faster than an arbitrary speed limit), is not the same as EXCESSIVE SPEED (going too fast for the prevailing conditions).

There is no discrepancy.  Of course speed is involved in every accident.  If there was no speed involved, all the cars would be stationary and their momentum would be equal to zero.  It's difficult to hurt someone in an accident if both parties have zero momentum.  We wouldn't get anywhere though.

There is a discrepancy though. One report says "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents." Meaning that they were going too fast for the conditions, resulting in an accident (this doesn't mean that there was an accident, and they were moving, it means that the level of speed itself contributed to the accident.'
In the other report (the one you cited) they say 'Exceeding speed limit: 5%'. Now while it is possible (though in my mind unlikely) that the 28% discrepancy consists of those "within the speed limit who were still going too fast for the conditions" It still begs the question.......why does the set of figures you link to make this (Exceeding speed limit) the only mention of going too fast? Where is the 28% discrepancy hidden? 

[Bongo]

I read that the higher figure is because they lumped loads of irrelevant ones ('other' if you will) in with the speed ones to inflate their headline figure.

[rex008]

Loads of analysis on the reg (geek news) about this stuff:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/speedcam_numbers/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/08/speed_camera_figures/

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

[sledge13]

Never been any speed cameras here in North Yorkshire, apart from the odd oinker with his gun...

[Jon MW]

Your argument is fundamentally flawed (aimed at TightPaulFolds)

Breaking the speed limit is NOT inherently dangerous.  Driving at 'excessive speed' IS dangerous.

You have not made one argument, or shown any empirical data that shows that speed cameras reduce the number of accidents in which people are seriously injured or killed.  The reason is that the evidence doesn't exist.  In fact, quite the opposite - and yes there is data to support that and I've posted it on here before.

If you're driving at 70mph in a 70mph zone it doesn't mean you're driving safely.  If you're doing 30mph in a 30 zone, again it doesn't mean it's safe.  The focus on speed neglects the cause of 97% of accidents on UK roads (again that's from studies, and I can dig out and post the links again if you want).  Your argument about the dangerous bend on a 70mph zone reinforces the point against an arbitrary speed limit making that section of road safe.  If it's wet, if you're drunk, if you're putting your make-up on, eating a sandwich, on your mobile (without handsfree), arguing with the missus, etc., you're increasing the danger in driving along that stretch of road.  If you're doing 69mph does that immediately make it safe? 

Oh, and doing 40mph in a 30mph residential area is obviously excessive speed.  Doing 30mph in a residential area if often excessive speed, the speed limit doesn't make it safe.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



Link pls, i'm in a ranty arsey mood so would like a read.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

I have been reading this http://www.ukroads.org/ukroadsafety/articlespapers/tomorrowsroadssaferforeveryone.pdf

The government cite research that shows that "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps kill around 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads."

This seems very at odds with the 5% figure cited in the link you quoted. Why do you think there is such a big discrepancy?

SPEEDING does not mean SPEED.

SPEEDING (going faster than an arbitrary speed limit), is not the same as EXCESSIVE SPEED (going too fast for the prevailing conditions).

There is no discrepancy.  Of course speed is involved in every accident.  If there was no speed involved, all the cars would be stationary and their momentum would be equal to zero.  It's difficult to hurt someone in an accident if both parties have zero momentum.  We wouldn't get anywhere though.

There is a discrepancy though. One report says "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents." Meaning that they were going too fast for the conditions, resulting in an accident (this doesn't mean that there was an accident, and they were moving, it means that the level of speed itself contributed to the accident.'
In the other report (the one you cited) they say 'Exceeding speed limit: 5%'. Now while it is possible (though in my mind unlikely) that the 28% discrepancy consists of those "within the speed limit who were still going too fast for the conditions" It still begs the question.......why does the set of figures you link to make this (Exceeding speed limit) the only mention of going too fast? Where is the 28% discrepancy hidden? 

Just a small point but the 5% for exceeding speed limit could have added to it those people who were also exceeding the speed limit but also

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%

Any one of those categories could involve exceeding the speed limit but the accident was categorised into something else because that seemed more accurate or important.

There's basically a million different ways you could present the same figures and draw different conclusions from them

[TightPaulFolds]

Your argument is fundamentally flawed (aimed at TightPaulFolds)

Breaking the speed limit is NOT inherently dangerous.  Driving at 'excessive speed' IS dangerous.

You have not made one argument, or shown any empirical data that shows that speed cameras reduce the number of accidents in which people are seriously injured or killed.  The reason is that the evidence doesn't exist.  In fact, quite the opposite - and yes there is data to support that and I've posted it on here before.

If you're driving at 70mph in a 70mph zone it doesn't mean you're driving safely.  If you're doing 30mph in a 30 zone, again it doesn't mean it's safe.  The focus on speed neglects the cause of 97% of accidents on UK roads (again that's from studies, and I can dig out and post the links again if you want).  Your argument about the dangerous bend on a 70mph zone reinforces the point against an arbitrary speed limit making that section of road safe.  If it's wet, if you're drunk, if you're putting your make-up on, eating a sandwich, on your mobile (without handsfree), arguing with the missus, etc., you're increasing the danger in driving along that stretch of road.  If you're doing 69mph does that immediately make it safe? 

Oh, and doing 40mph in a 30mph residential area is obviously excessive speed.  Doing 30mph in a residential area if often excessive speed, the speed limit doesn't make it safe.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



Link pls, i'm in a ranty arsey mood so would like a read.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

I have been reading this http://www.ukroads.org/ukroadsafety/articlespapers/tomorrowsroadssaferforeveryone.pdf

The government cite research that shows that "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps kill around 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads."

This seems very at odds with the 5% figure cited in the link you quoted. Why do you think there is such a big discrepancy?

SPEEDING does not mean SPEED.

SPEEDING (going faster than an arbitrary speed limit), is not the same as EXCESSIVE SPEED (going too fast for the prevailing conditions).

There is no discrepancy.  Of course speed is involved in every accident.  If there was no speed involved, all the cars would be stationary and their momentum would be equal to zero.  It's difficult to hurt someone in an accident if both parties have zero momentum.  We wouldn't get anywhere though.

There is a discrepancy though. One report says "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents." Meaning that they were going too fast for the conditions, resulting in an accident (this doesn't mean that there was an accident, and they were moving, it means that the level of speed itself contributed to the accident.'
In the other report (the one you cited) they say 'Exceeding speed limit: 5%'. Now while it is possible (though in my mind unlikely) that the 28% discrepancy consists of those "within the speed limit who were still going too fast for the conditions" It still begs the question.......why does the set of figures you link to make this (Exceeding speed limit) the only mention of going too fast? Where is the 28% discrepancy hidden? 

Just a small point but the 5% for exceeding speed limit could have added to it those people who were also exceeding the speed limit but also

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%

Any one of those categories could involve exceeding the speed limit but the accident was categorised into something else because that seemed more accurate or important.

There's basically a million different ways you could present the same figures and draw different conclusions from them

Well you do the ANOVA /MANOVA/MANCOVA then pal cos my SPSS is f*cked

What you are saying is kind of my point. The site from which the stats are quoted has a specific agenda...to show that other factors are more important than speeding and thus it presents this list of figures *contrasting* them with speeding. Oh lookey, we have 'Failed to look properly at 32%' but where is the 'speed' component (ok they list it as speeding, but it leads to that conclusion since they list excess speed nowhere else) ? Oh, it's down there at 5%.
Well they can GTFO. An accident where I 'failed to look properly' may have "been made worse" by the fact that the guy was coming at me at 90mph and I was going the other way doing 90mph, but who would deny that there is a separate, discrete, contributory cause, viz that you were DRIVING TOO *******G FAST! An extreme example, but you can't deny that vehicle speed seems to be severely underrepresented there.
In fact, looking down the list, driving too fast would so severely exacerbate so many of those items, I'm really surprised that it doesn't serve as the single most important contributory factor in an even larger percentage of accidents.

[Bongo]

So you're choosing to disregard the evidence because it doesn't fit your viewpoint?

[Jon MW]

So you're choosing to disregard the evidence because it doesn't fit your viewpoint?

Those figures don't provide enough information to draw any inference from either for or against either side of the argument.

A more complete set of the data it was based on may do, but how it's presented here doesn't.

[henrik777]

Your argument is fundamentally flawed (aimed at TightPaulFolds)

Breaking the speed limit is NOT inherently dangerous.  Driving at 'excessive speed' IS dangerous.

You have not made one argument, or shown any empirical data that shows that speed cameras reduce the number of accidents in which people are seriously injured or killed.  The reason is that the evidence doesn't exist.  In fact, quite the opposite - and yes there is data to support that and I've posted it on here before.

If you're driving at 70mph in a 70mph zone it doesn't mean you're driving safely.  If you're doing 30mph in a 30 zone, again it doesn't mean it's safe.  The focus on speed neglects the cause of 97% of accidents on UK roads (again that's from studies, and I can dig out and post the links again if you want).  Your argument about the dangerous bend on a 70mph zone reinforces the point against an arbitrary speed limit making that section of road safe.  If it's wet, if you're drunk, if you're putting your make-up on, eating a sandwich, on your mobile (without handsfree), arguing with the missus, etc., you're increasing the danger in driving along that stretch of road.  If you're doing 69mph does that immediately make it safe? 

Oh, and doing 40mph in a 30mph residential area is obviously excessive speed.  Doing 30mph in a residential area if often excessive speed, the speed limit doesn't make it safe.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



Link pls, i'm in a ranty arsey mood so would like a read.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

I have been reading this http://www.ukroads.org/ukroadsafety/articlespapers/tomorrowsroadssaferforeveryone.pdf

The government cite research that shows that "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps kill around 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads."

This seems very at odds with the 5% figure cited in the link you quoted. Why do you think there is such a big discrepancy?

SPEEDING does not mean SPEED.

SPEEDING (going faster than an arbitrary speed limit), is not the same as EXCESSIVE SPEED (going too fast for the prevailing conditions).

There is no discrepancy.  Of course speed is involved in every accident.  If there was no speed involved, all the cars would be stationary and their momentum would be equal to zero.  It's difficult to hurt someone in an accident if both parties have zero momentum.  We wouldn't get anywhere though.

There is a discrepancy though. One report says "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents." Meaning that they were going too fast for the conditions, resulting in an accident (this doesn't mean that there was an accident, and they were moving, it means that the level of speed itself contributed to the accident.'
In the other report (the one you cited) they say 'Exceeding speed limit: 5%'. Now while it is possible (though in my mind unlikely) that the 28% discrepancy consists of those "within the speed limit who were still going too fast for the conditions" It still begs the question.......why does the set of figures you link to make this (Exceeding speed limit) the only mention of going too fast? Where is the 28% discrepancy hidden? 

Just a small point but the 5% for exceeding speed limit could have added to it those people who were also exceeding the speed limit but also

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%

Any one of those categories could involve exceeding the speed limit but the accident was categorised into something else because that seemed more accurate or important.

There's basically a million different ways you could present the same figures and draw different conclusions from them

Well you do the ANOVA /MANOVA/MANCOVA then pal cos my SPSS is f*cked

What you are saying is kind of my point. The site from which the stats are quoted has a specific agenda...to show that other factors are more important than speeding and thus it presents this list of figures *contrasting* them with speeding. Oh lookey, we have 'Failed to look properly at 32%' but where is the 'speed' component (ok they list it as speeding, but it leads to that conclusion since they list excess speed nowhere else) ? Oh, it's down there at 5%.
Well they can GTFO. An accident where I 'failed to look properly' may have "been made worse" by the fact that the guy was coming at me at 90mph and I was going the other way doing 90mph, but who would deny that there is a separate, discrete, contributory cause, viz that you were DRIVING TOO *******G FAST! An extreme example, but you can't deny that vehicle speed seems to be severely underrepresented there.
In fact, looking down the list, driving too fast would so severely exacerbate so many of those items, I'm really surprised that it doesn't serve as the single most important contributory factor in an even larger percentage of accidents.

Well i'd imagine it's possible to drive for 50 years doing decent mileage pretty quickly and not have an accident  or even cause one. Try the same 50 years without ever breaking the speed limit and never looking in your mirror. I'd guess it's impossible to do that without accidents.

Sandy

[TightPaulFolds]

So you're choosing to disregard the evidence because it doesn't fit your viewpoint?

Nah, just questioning one piece of government 'evidence' because it seems to contradict another piece of government 'evidence'.

[Bongo]

So you're choosing to disregard the evidence because it doesn't fit your viewpoint?

Those figures don't provide enough information to draw any inference from either for or against either side of the argument.

A more complete set of the data it was based on may do, but how it's presented here doesn't.

You are correct but that isn't what he said.

[Jon MW]

So you're choosing to disregard the evidence because it doesn't fit your viewpoint?

Those figures don't provide enough information to draw any inference from either for or against either side of the argument.

A more complete set of the data it was based on may do, but how it's presented here doesn't.

You are correct but that isn't what he said.

  It was my point though - I didn't want them mixed up 

[kinboshi]

Your argument is fundamentally flawed (aimed at TightPaulFolds)

Breaking the speed limit is NOT inherently dangerous.  Driving at 'excessive speed' IS dangerous.

You have not made one argument, or shown any empirical data that shows that speed cameras reduce the number of accidents in which people are seriously injured or killed.  The reason is that the evidence doesn't exist.  In fact, quite the opposite - and yes there is data to support that and I've posted it on here before.

If you're driving at 70mph in a 70mph zone it doesn't mean you're driving safely.  If you're doing 30mph in a 30 zone, again it doesn't mean it's safe.  The focus on speed neglects the cause of 97% of accidents on UK roads (again that's from studies, and I can dig out and post the links again if you want).  Your argument about the dangerous bend on a 70mph zone reinforces the point against an arbitrary speed limit making that section of road safe.  If it's wet, if you're drunk, if you're putting your make-up on, eating a sandwich, on your mobile (without handsfree), arguing with the missus, etc., you're increasing the danger in driving along that stretch of road.  If you're doing 69mph does that immediately make it safe? 

Oh, and doing 40mph in a 30mph residential area is obviously excessive speed.  Doing 30mph in a residential area if often excessive speed, the speed limit doesn't make it safe.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



Link pls, i'm in a ranty arsey mood so would like a read.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

I have been reading this http://www.ukroads.org/ukroadsafety/articlespapers/tomorrowsroadssaferforeveryone.pdf

The government cite research that shows that "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps kill around 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads."

This seems very at odds with the 5% figure cited in the link you quoted. Why do you think there is such a big discrepancy?

SPEEDING does not mean SPEED.

SPEEDING (going faster than an arbitrary speed limit), is not the same as EXCESSIVE SPEED (going too fast for the prevailing conditions).

There is no discrepancy.  Of course speed is involved in every accident.  If there was no speed involved, all the cars would be stationary and their momentum would be equal to zero.  It's difficult to hurt someone in an accident if both parties have zero momentum.  We wouldn't get anywhere though.

There is a discrepancy though. One report says "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents." Meaning that they were going too fast for the conditions, resulting in an accident (this doesn't mean that there was an accident, and they were moving, it means that the level of speed itself contributed to the accident.'
In the other report (the one you cited) they say 'Exceeding speed limit: 5%'. Now while it is possible (though in my mind unlikely) that the 28% discrepancy consists of those "within the speed limit who were still going too fast for the conditions" It still begs the question.......why does the set of figures you link to make this (Exceeding speed limit) the only mention of going too fast? Where is the 28% discrepancy hidden? 

Just a small point but the 5% for exceeding speed limit could have added to it those people who were also exceeding the speed limit but also

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%

Any one of those categories could involve exceeding the speed limit but the accident was categorised into something else because that seemed more accurate or important.

There's basically a million different ways you could present the same figures and draw different conclusions from them

Well you do the ANOVA /MANOVA/MANCOVA then pal cos my SPSS is f*cked

What you are saying is kind of my point. The site from which the stats are quoted has a specific agenda...to show that other factors are more important than speeding and thus it presents this list of figures *contrasting* them with speeding. Oh lookey, we have 'Failed to look properly at 32%' but where is the 'speed' component (ok they list it as speeding, but it leads to that conclusion since they list excess speed nowhere else) ? Oh, it's down there at 5%.
Well they can GTFO. An accident where I 'failed to look properly' may have "been made worse" by the fact that the guy was coming at me at 90mph and I was going the other way doing 90mph, but who would deny that there is a separate, discrete, contributory cause, viz that you were DRIVING TOO *******G FAST! An extreme example, but you can't deny that vehicle speed seems to be severely underrepresented there.
In fact, looking down the list, driving too fast would so severely exacerbate so many of those items, I'm really surprised that it doesn't serve as the single most important contributory factor in an even larger percentage of accidents.

LOL. Driving too fast (to drive safely) is VERY different to exceeding the speed limit.

Driving too fast IS dangerous.  If you're tail-gating at 60mph on a motorway, you're driving TOO FAST.  But you aren't exceeding the speed limit.  Yet, it's still dangerous.

I think you know you're wrong and now you're being obtuse in order to save face. 

[Acidmouse]

I got done today, 1st time ever. Up into Harrogate from Leeds road. Going up the hill just exiting a 30 zone into 40 speed limit zone.

Pig with gun said I was doing 41, I said yes I needed the speed to get up the hill and maintain the flow of traffic as i entered the 40 zone. Her response was basically tough shit, she admitted the signs are confusing and I was getting screwed whatever.

Glad I turned on my phone mic when she said that, I said I see her in court where my wife will defend me over the blatantly confusing speed sign designed to trap people trying to get up the hill. 4-5 points I am guessing if people just excepted this crap.