Only 6.4% of fatal crashes caused by excessive speed

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

I have resisted posting in here, but here goes:


Hands up those people who think 6.5 people out of every 100 DYING as a result of speed is an acceptable number?

I can spin doctor statistics to make headlines too.

Hands up those people who think 93.5 people out of every 100 DYING as a result of NOT speeding is an acceptable number?

[MercurySilver]

i wonder what the percent of those total deaths in the state is caused by ******** cyclists thinking they own the road, not riding in bike lanes because they arent as smooth as the actual road bit, riding 3 abreast and all over the shop until they hear the car coming and then get back into double formation
plus riding around some of the worst roads in the barossa and the hills

i mean who in their right mind would ride a bike on tippet road and fox creek road for christ sake
asking to get squashed and just waiting to cause an accident

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

I have resisted posting in here, but here goes:


Hands up those people who think 6.5 people out of every 100 DYING as a result of speed is an acceptable number?

You have missed the point! DUI 19 dead, inattention 25 dead!

No deaths are acceptable for any reason but why are you focussing on one of the smaller ones just like the media and the govt when there can be much greater gains and improvements from the two above if resources are and energys channelled in that area and when the statistics for those are below 6.4% then renew efforts to lower the 6.4% for speed related deaths.

Its a fact that as long as we drive there will be deaths associated with it and if we stop driving and use different modes of transport there will be deaths with that too. Its the way of the world and we have to accept that there will be some casualties just as there are with everything humans do but our resources could be used more wisely to lessen them.

[IDT]

It does my head in when I see stats like these. There is never a single cause for a crash.

Over simplifying these stats has resulted in so many stupid laws.
I'd like to see stats where the three prime causes for each incident is counted. Also rather than concentrate on fatalities. Include permanent major disability (say more than 50% disability for over 12 months). As far as i am concerned the difference between the two is shear luck.

[Solomonkane]

I've never bought into the 'speeding kills' propaganda the government and others put out. In my view, as far as speed is concerned it is inappropriate speed for the conditions that is the issue. It's legal to do 80kmh on the freeway heading into Brisbane city, but I wouldn't be doing it in a heavy Queensland rain. When there are cars lining the sides of the road, or a crest ahead, it makes sense to slow down, not go as fast as legally allowed.

For the most part no government has ever really struck me as being truly serious about reducing road fatalities. For example, various studies have indicated that the introduction of speed cameras has resulted in an increase not a decrease in accidents. The general theory is that many drivers are too focused on their speedometers rather than the road ahead. I have yet to see any government genuinely looking into the reliability of such research.

My mother was booked for going 1kmh over the speed limit. When the issue of variance in speedometers was raised we were basically ignored. There's a road going down hill out Ferny Grove way that years ago used to be sign posted 60kmh. I got booked there once for doing about 65kmh. About a year later I noticed that it was now 80kmh. No changes to the road, no changes to anything, but suddenly 20khm faster was now okay.

It has been years since I had my last speeding ticket, but got hit a few months back on the way to Boonah. Due to tiredness, first time going out that way, numerous confusing road detour signs, and glancing at my speedometer at the wrong times, when taking the exit from the highway I missed seeing the sign indicating the change from 80kmh to 60kmh. Motorbike cop clocked me doing 78kmh. Early in the morning, no other cars, excellent long range visibility, so absolutely zero danger to me or anyone else. Didn't matter, nor the fact that I was obviously doing what I thought was the legal speed. Outrageous comment from the motorcycle cop by the way. When I said it was obvious I had not been intentionally speeding he actually replied "No one intentionally speeds!"

Ultimately, the fact is I broke the speed limit, so fair enough, I paid the fine. But for a while it really got under my skin that here I am doing the right thing 99% of the time, slowing down for roadwork signs, weather conditions, low visibility etc., and I get booked for unintentionally speeding. I still think being let off with a warning would have been more appropriate, but then that would mean the government missing out on the money right? The way governments appear to ignore statistics and studies that do not support the idea that speed kills, and the way a large majority of the police in Queensland are treating drivers lately, I have a hard time believing that they care about anything other than the massive amounts of money they are raking in.

[mike_nofx]

As most people seem to disagree with the current system/s, what is the solution?

Have no speed limits, let everyone determine their own speeds?

Keep our current speed limits, but don't enforce the limit?

Increase speed limits and do/dont enforce those limits?

[xxx000]

what % of crashes that result in serious injuries are caused by excessive speed?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

As most people seem to disagree with the current system/s, what is the solution?

Have no speed limits, let everyone determine their own speeds?

Keep our current speed limits, but don't enforce the limit?

Increase speed limits and do/dont enforce those limits?

Yes, the one size fits all dogma.

The problem is bureaucratic thinking in which everything must conform to "the policy" and if it is not suitable in a situation the the policy is applied regardless rather than modified to suit.

When reality does not conform with theory in is never the reality that is wrong.

How about increase limits in some places, lower limits in others and allow open zones in remote and other suitable areas?

Apply limits based on actual suitability not because of a document written by people who usually have never even heard of the place the policy is being applied.

Unfortunately the greatest terror a public servant can face is having to make a decision for which they may be held accountable and they will do almost anything regardless of collateral damage caused to avoid it.......

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

As most people seem to disagree with the current system/s, what is the solution?

Have no speed limits, let everyone determine their own speeds?

Keep our current speed limits, but don't enforce the limit?

Increase speed limits and do/dont enforce those limits?

The question is about enforcement.

We should enforce the laws that cause the accident.
Speed definitely makes the accident worse, but enforcing speed limits is a symptomatic solution - like taking painkillers when you have appendicitis: great until you get the real solution.

I have previously created a list of currently enforceable laws that among other things focus on awareness and respect for other drivers (not the victimless crime of driving 110 in a 100 zone on a well known, well lit, empty road ... where there happens to be a speed camera)

In large these would cost a higher police presence, and police looking at the cars, not the speed detector. But guess what - speed compliance will come for free when you have the higher police presence.

Who put that soap box there, and how did I get on it ?

[LTDHO]

Apparently, there is a big picture (according to TAC) and we're all missing it.

Personally I think it's TAC missing the big picture. Meh!

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by flappist

Hands up those people who think 93.5 people out of every 100 DYING as a result of NOT speeding is an acceptable number?

Do you know how stupid that reads - . I spent 13 years of my time volunteering for the VicSES responsing to road accidents pulling poor dead bastards out of cars, maybe you should try it, it might just give you a bit of a different perspective.

The only real way to stop people dying in car accidents is to fool proof the cars, but when I suggest that I get howled down for that as well. This is 'risk managment' approach, it is what happens in workplaces all over the world, you make the machine so safe that the ****en idiots operating them can't possibly hurt themselves, cars will go this way as well, it is already happening, ABS, ESC, seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, and on and on, there is lots more out there that is not yet affordable to the multitudes but it will come, we need to wrap everyone in a cocoon of bubble wrap, they have proved they can't keep themselves safe.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Do you know how stupid that reads - . I spent 13 years of my time volunteering for the VicSES responsing to road accidents pulling poor dead bastards out of cars, maybe you should try it, it might just give you a bit of a different perspective.

The only real way to stop people dying in car accidents is to fool proof the cars, but when I suggest that I get howled down for that as well. This is 'risk managment' approach, it is what happens in workplaces all over the world, you make the machine so safe that the ****en idiots operating them can't possibly hurt themselves, cars will go this way as well, it is already happening, ABS, ESC, seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, and on and on, there is lots more out there that is not yet affordable to the multitudes but it will come, we need to wrap everyone in a cocoon of bubble wrap, they have proved they can't keep themselves safe.

Yes just as stupid as your statement.

6.4% of people did not die because of speeding. As there are about 23,000,000 people that would be about 1,472,000 killed by speeding which was not the case.

Firstly it said number of crashes not people killed.

You made an emotive beat up out of a statistic and I parodied it to show just how silly your statement was.

6.4% of fatalities having excess speed as a major component could mean 1,472,000 killed out of 23,000,000 or it could mean 1 crash killing 1 person out of the total of 16 crashes in the year even though there could have been 100,000 people killed in each of the other 15 crashes. The only thing it does show absolutely is the 93.6% of fatal crashes did NOT have excess speed as a major component.

How many of these accidents happened on a Tuesday?
If it is above the average then maybe we could save lives by banning driving on Tuesdays.

Or would that also be another emotive beatup trying to create some sort of collective guilt in the vain hope of pushing a myopic dogma rather than conveying a clear picture of the truth.

[Trevor 57]

Don't talk about the risk management approach flappist, what ever you do

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Don't talk about the risk management approach flappist, what ever you do

Risk management approach, the gospel according to OH&S.

Is it true that on any OH&S and Risk Management forums there are only two banned swear words, "common" and "sense"?

No, I have no interest in talking about it whatsoever.......

[Trevor 57]

Thought as much.

The only people who mention OHS / Risk Management in a bad way are those that don't understand it, by the way it is OK to show your ignorance every so often.

[Werd.]

Still 6.4 crashes for every 100 that could have been entirely avoided by not speeding.. Not to mention the accidents caused by speeding that weren't reported as such, what would that bring the number to.. 10%? 20%?

Speeding related accidents are also more likely to be fatal. You can twist words as much as you want but cameras are still needed, speed kills.

Some of the opinions voiced here are funny, and I only read the first page.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Thought as much.

The only people who mention OHS / Risk Management in a bad way are those that don't understand it, by the way it is OK to show your ignorance every so often.

Now that is getting a bit personal Trev.

Do you really believe that anyone whose views are different to yours must not understand a subject?

And you think that this makes THEM ignorant?

The good thing about forums is that everyone can read the posts and make up their own minds.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Werd.

Still 6.4 crashes for every 100 that could have been entirely avoided by not speeding.. Not to mention the accidents caused by speeding that weren't reported as such, what would that bring the number to.. 10%? 20%?

Speeding related accidents are also more likely to be fatal. You can twist words as much as you want but cameras are still needed, speed kills.

Some of the opinions voiced here are funny, and I only read the first page.

And how do you determine that?
6.4% Speeding was A factor, not the ONLY factor.

That is as silly as saying 33% were in Commodores so if Commodores were banned then there would be 33% less crashes.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by flappist

Now that is getting a bit personal Trev..

and why did I know you would take that as a personsal jibe

If you google the word 'ignorant' it does mean people who don't know something, it is not always meant to be derogatory, but I knew you would take it the wrong way even though it wasn't the way I meant it.

[EVLKNEVL]

I'm still yet to see one shred of evidence proving that speed cameras = fewer speeders = fewer road fatalities.

Until such evidence is shown, anyone suggesting that speed cameras are in fact necessary to prevent people dying on the road is just being nonsensical.

[karj]

Originally Posted by flappist

And how do you determine that?
6.4% Speeding was A factor, not the ONLY factor.

That is as silly as saying 33% were in Commodores so if Commodores were banned then there would be 33% less crashes.

I'm actually not sure that is how the stats have been recorded.

If someone was DUI, swerving onto the other side of the road (failing to keep left) and speeding excessively... in these stats, was that fatality recorded in every single relevant column, or was it just attributed to DUI?

I don't know the answer to that, but I have a hunch that it would just be attributed to DUI, thus the stats would not reflect every fatality where speeding was a factor.

EDIT: I believe I am correct in what I have said above. There were apparently 95 fatal road crashes in SA in 2011 (http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/***...nkbook2011.pdf) and the stats that the OP has copied on the first post of this thread reflect 94. Don't know why the difference in 1, but this would mean that the stats given by the OP have attributed road fatalities to a singular cause. Hence, 6.4% of fatalities were a result of *only* excessive speed, but who knows how many more where it was a factor.

[svo supporter]

How much over the limit were they when the death occurred? Were they doing 45 in a 40 zone when they crashed? ....Or were they doing 45 KPH over the sign posted limit when the accident occurred, which resulted in the death?

Yeah, this can be classed as dribble, but it's still along the same lines that is being carried on, when it comes to other factors that are being thrown around in this thread.

I can only assume, the stats that were put forward to begin with, were stats attributed to speed only, as the cause of the death.....Reason being, the gov't is shoving the don't speed message down our throats lately and this is another way they're doing it.

[noflac52]

I still can,t get my head around why everyone on this thread is fixated on the speed percentage!!!! Its low when compared to some of the other reasons motorists are dying.

Speed is a factor in every collision because the vehicles are moving. Thats a fact and we can only eliminate it by having vehicles that don't move.

Even then some people may still die by having landslides fall on their car or trees etc and speed becomes a factor again because landslides, trees etc are moving. Speed is always a factor but this does not necessarily equate to anyone doing anything wrong or being able to do anything about it.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Do you know how stupid that reads - . I spent 13 years of my time volunteering for the VicSES responsing to road accidents pulling poor dead bastards out of cars, maybe you should try it, it might just give you a bit of a different perspective.

The only real way to stop people dying in car accidents is to fool proof the cars, but when I suggest that I get howled down for that as well. This is 'risk managment' approach, it is what happens in workplaces all over the world, you make the machine so safe that the ****en idiots operating them can't possibly hurt themselves, cars will go this way as well, it is already happening, ABS, ESC, seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, and on and on, there is lots more out there that is not yet affordable to the multitudes but it will come, we need to wrap everyone in a cocoon of bubble wrap, they have proved they can't keep themselves safe.

You are not seriously suggesting the OHS/Risk Management formula and paperwork for driving a car?

That last bit about having proved they can't keep themselves safe and need to be 'bubble wrapped', is the 'holier than thou' appoach of bureaucracy. We know better than you, and you must comply and approve of all ideas the bureaucracy comes up with.

[GasoLane]

You're all wrong..

It's because we earn too much money according to Dr Mark King, at Queensland’s Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety..........

“Also, if people have more discretionary income, they spend it on things like entertainment and end up travelling during times of the week or day where you’re more likely to be involved in an accident,”

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/11...-boom/?cs=2452

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by noflac52

I still can,t get my head around why everyone on this thread is fixated on the speed percentage!!!! Its low when compared to some of the other reasons motorists are dying.

Speed is a factor in every collision because the vehicles are moving. Thats a fact and we can only eliminate it by having vehicles that don't move.

.

Really, the deaths aren't a result of speed....There the result of the sudden stop.

Yes there are other reasons people die on the roads, but I suspect the reason there is a lot of chatter in this thread about speed is because of the thread title. Might pay you to check the title out and re-assess your opening comment

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by Werd.

Still 6.4 crashes for every 100 that could have been entirely avoided by not speeding.. Not to mention the accidents caused by speeding that weren't reported as such, what would that bring the number to.. 10%? 20%?

Speeding related accidents are also more likely to be fatal. You can twist words as much as you want but cameras are still needed, speed kills.

Some of the opinions voiced here are funny, and I only read the first page.

Really?

As previously said, this stat is that speed contributed, not the cause. There is nothing to prove that if speed wasn't a factor the deaths wouldn't have occured.

If the stat's weren't bias (IMO) then you would probably see speeding contributing to as little as 1 or 2%.

[karj]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Really?

As previously said, this stat is that speed contributed, not the cause. There is nothing to prove that if speed wasn't a factor the deaths wouldn't have occured.

If the stat's weren't bias (IMO) then you would probably see speeding contributing to as little as 1 or 2%.

No. These stats put road fatalities down to a single cause. In 6.4%, excessive speed was recorded as the single cause.

This means that there is likely a higher percentage of fatalities where excessive speed did contribute, but it's not recorded in these stats.

[MAD]

If the gov is trying to impose "risk management" by lowering speed limits and enforcing the laws. Does that mean we can sue them if our child is abducted, because they didn't do enough in regard to "duty of care", because they do not have enough police on the streets?

Totally far fetched, yes, but so is the idea that they can legislate against stupid people.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Really, the deaths aren't a result of speed....There the result of the sudden stop.

Yes there are other reasons people die on the roads, but I suspect the reason there is a lot of chatter in this thread about speed is because of the thread title. Might pay you to check the title out and re-assess your opening comment

Thats a tad condescending and doesn't address the thread title at all (which you are accusing me of doing) A bit ironic that, but if it makes you feel better!!!!

No reassessment of comment needed though! Its not the chatter its the fixation of excessive speed that I was commenting on

The fixation I refer to is contained in the quote below. Speculation about excessive speed being a factor when its not recorded in the stats. This is just spinning things to try to make speed a major factor when there is no evidence of this in this set of stats or this thread.

Now your ok with that but you are saying that the other stats that are much larger, that the original poster actually put up, are not relevent or to be discussed because of the name of the thread. Wow!

I didn't say anything about the "result" as you put it. I merely stated that speed is a factor that cannot be eliminated.

Originally Posted by karj

No. These stats put road fatalities down to a single cause. In 6.4%, excessive speed was recorded as the single cause.

This means that there is likely a higher percentage of fatalities where excessive speed did contribute, but it's not recorded in these stats.

Your comment about this will carry more weight if you can actually provide evidence by the way of statistics as the original poster did! Until then its just pure speculation!