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)

Absurdum

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

. Why then all the focus on speeding and speed cameras?

€€€

Nissan doctor

I'd like to think that anyone with half a clue would realise that speeding(i.e breaking the speed limit) alone doesn't cause crashes. Its just an easily recognisable issue for the RSA/government to focus on.

Inappropriate speed(not necessarily over the limit) in a given situation coupled with other factors, most of which are driver error, is what can lead to accidents.

Gophur

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)

Any chance of extrapolating from this and find out if those figures mean exceeding the speed limit, or how is "safe speed" defined?


The advocates of speed cameras will say these figures show the cameras are working.

Seperate

I'd say the main reason why someone 'went to wrong side of road' or 'failed to stop/yield' would be mostly due to speed as well.

TankGuy

Maybe the 9% from speeding has the highest fatality rate, and it is deaths they are trying to stop. Just a possibility. Is there a way of checking which one has the highest fatalities?

TankGuy

Seperate wrote: »

I'd say the main reason why someone 'went to wrong side of road' or 'failed to stop/yield' would be mostly due to speed as well.

I doubt that, i'd say it not paying attention that causes these mainly.

Nissan doctor

Seperate wrote: »

I'd say the main reason why someone 'went to wrong side of road' or 'failed to stop/yield' would be mostly due to speed as well.

More like the terrible standard of overtaking ability(and driving in general) in this country would be the main reason for an accident while being on the wrong side of the road.

With regards to stop signs/yields etc, they are only in built up areas where speed is less of an issue then on national or regional roads, so simple lack of observation and distractions would be a more likely cause of those I'd have thought.

si_guru

TankGuy wrote: »

Maybe the 9% from speeding has the highest fatality rate, and it is deaths they are trying to stop. Just a possibility. Is there a way of checking which one has the highest fatalities?

Agreed.

Plus breaking the speed limit is dangerous whether you have a crash or not!

hidinginthebush

Though it's a factor in 25% of fatal incidents

Crazy Horse 6

Speeding kills. End of.

Absurdum

si_guru wrote: »

Plus breaking the speed limit is dangerous whether you have a crash or not!

it's not really

otherwise the population of the western world would be about 50 people

Blazer

TankGuy wrote: »

I doubt that, i'd say it not paying attention that causes these mainly.

or some idiot thinking his car has magical tires that will keep him on his side of the road no matter how fast he takes the bend...
actually the amount of idiots that take bends too fast is unreal..nearly every second car I meet down here is on the white line or over it when taking bends...
Let them speed all their want on dual carriageways/motorways but just take it handy on the crappy normal roads.

Colin4May

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)

That's a very interesting statistic. And yes, I think education rather than hectoring is the answer. Aggressive driving is what t's me off. Anmd it's not just blokes and boy racers. I got carved up by a bouffant exec in a BMW, who when I honked, wound down her window to give me an elongated "w@nker" signal. Thanks, Lady!

Nissan doctor

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Though it's a factor in 25% of fatal incidents

So still nowhere near the main cause as the RSA et all claim.

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Speeding kills. End of.

Rubbish, end of.

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

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.

Driver education is also a huge factor.

For Forks Sake

Saving lives Revenue

Padraig Mor

Gophur wrote: »

Any chance of extrapolating from this and find out if those figures mean exceeding the speed limit, or how is "safe speed" defined?


The advocates of speed cameras will say these figures show the cameras are working.

The 9% includes those accidents which, in the opinion of a Garda, were primarily due to a driver exceeding the safe speed for the conditions. It includes speeds under the limit. The RSA do not collect data on crashes solely caused by exceeding the posted speed limit; however, extrapolation and examination of UK data indicates that this figure is under 5%. i.e. practically the entire 'road safety' budget in Ireland is focussed on preventing 5% of fatal collisions, with the cause of 95% of such collisions ignored. Not much of a safety strategy is it?


/awaits the arrival of cyclopath2001 and the high horse brigade, who believe that we should not do all we can to reduce road deaths.

I.S.T.

Gophur wrote: »

Any chance of extrapolating from this and find out if those figures mean exceeding the speed limit, or how is "safe speed" defined?

As far as I know it is decided by the investigating Gardaí on the scene. They probably measure skid marks to determine the speed the car was travelling at, as well as talking to witnesses at the scene. You're right though, would be interesting to find out exactly how this is determined.

Gophur wrote: »

The advocates of speed cameras will say these figures show the cameras are working.

These stats are from before the introduction of GoSafe privatised speed cameras

Seperate wrote: »

I'd say the main reason why someone 'went to wrong side of road' or 'failed to stop/yield' would be mostly due to speed as well.

Just your opinion, not a proveable fact.

TankGuy wrote: »

Maybe the 9% from speeding has the highest fatality rate, and it is deaths they are trying to stop. Just a possibility. Is there a way of checking which one has the highest fatalities?

Have a look at the table I attached to the original post, it's all in there. It's 25% of road deaths, which is 8 deaths. Ok, we all agree one death is one too many, but it is still a very low figure. Anyway why does everyone focus on deaths all the time, there are so many people seriously injured and this can be worse than dying for some people and their families.

risteard7

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

TankGuy

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Anyway why does everyone focus on deaths all the time, there are so many people seriously injured and this can be worse than dying for some people and their families.

Thats a fair point.

In fairness what the RSA always harp on about is speeding and to keep focused on the road. They have the whole "Stop, have a coffee if your tired" campaign. So i think they do try combat both speeding and keeping your attention while driving.

The Gardai on the other hand mainly focus on speedign as its harder to police people not paying attention unless they witness it firsthand.

Mr. Presentable

Speed is not the cause of many accidents. Inappropriate or inattentive driving is.

However, there is disingenuousness, whether intentional or through lack of understanding, in many posts on the thread.

Speed becomes a factor once the accident has happened, so excessive speed is a primary cause of death or serious injury.

A head on collision caused by someone not paying attention.

At a combined 40kph, not likely to kill

At a combined 140kph, likely to kill.

Thus, the RSA are right in trying to reduce speeding. By whatever means. As they are also correct in trying to reduce the causes of accidents.

MagicSean

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)

These figures are most likely taken from Garda reports. Very few Garda reports will note speeding as a contributing factor as it is not possible to prove in any way unless they happen to crash in range of a speed van.

Iwannahurl

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)

Look again at the title of the table you attached.

"Two vehicle collisions: contributory action, where specified".

The total number of fatalities involved is 32.

This figure represents a small percentage of Irish road deaths and a vanishingly small proportion of all road deaths.

Do you really believe that this one table in a single Irish report for one year undermines the well-established finding in road safety research internationally that excess speed is a major factor both in the risk and severity of car crashes?

Do you believe that it undermines the international evidence for the effectiveness of speed surveillance?

alias no.9

Speed cameras are a poor substitute for having traffic police on duty. They can be useful in addition to an adequate level of traffic policing, for example where you want to ensure traffic slows down before a particular hazard, but the current implementation is a joke.

When was the last time you saw the rest of the rules of the road being policed?

si_guru

Absurdum wrote: »

it's not really

otherwise the population of the western world would be about 50 people

I said speed was dangerous - not that it would cause the death of 2 billion people.

You tell me when speeding isn't dangerous then.

btw - "speeding" means "exceeding the posted speed limit".

Guy:Incognito

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

"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?

Do you really think people drive on to the worng side of the road and crash or fly through a stop or yield sign because nobody told them not too?



While the speeding itself might not cause the accident , it does considerably lower the time you have to react to a problem.

Nissan doctor

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Speed is not the cause of many accidents. Inappropriate or inattentive driving is.

However, there is disingenuousness, whether intentional or through lack of understanding, in many posts on the thread.

Speed becomes a factor once the accident has happened, so excessive speed is a primary cause of death or serious injury.

A head on collision caused by someone not paying attention.

At a combined 40kph, not likely to kill

At a combined 140kph, likely to kill.

Thus, the RSA are right in trying to reduce speeding. By whatever means. As they are also correct in trying to reduce the causes of accidents.

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?

MagicSean

alias no.9 wrote: »

Speed cameras are a poor substitute for having traffic police on duty. They can be useful in addition to an adequate level of traffic policing, for example where you want to ensure traffic slows down before a particular hazard, but the current implementation is a joke.

When was the last time you saw the rest of the rules of the road being policed?

Yesterday.

I disagree with your criticism of the speed vans. I have noticed a reduction in speed on the stretches where they are known to be. And in my area these are all areas where collisions are frequent, including fatal and serious collisions on the majority of them in the last five years.

alias no.9

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Yesterday.

I disagree with your criticism of the speed vans. I have noticed a reduction in speed on the stretches where they are known to be. And in my area these are all areas where collisions are frequent, including fatal and serious collisions on the majority of them in the last five years.

Some of the locations they are deployed are effective, many are blatant revenue generation excercises and no I'm not talking from bitter experience, I remain penalty points free since the introduction of penalty points. There has been a notable reduction in traffic patrols since the introduction of the speed vans.

Guy:Incognito

alias no.9 wrote: »

Speed cameras are a poor substitute for having traffic police on duty.

They are a lot cheaper and can work 24/7 without needing rest, leaving real police to do other things.

Its one of the few parts of their job that can be fully automated so is a good thing imo. ANPR is another part of the same story. Means they sdont have to set up time wasting checkpoints and can be doign any number of other things till the system gets a ping and they just have to go after the one person.

alias no.9 wrote: »

Some of the locations they are deployed are effective, many are blatant revenue generation excercises and no I'm not talking from bitter experience, I remain penalty points free since the introduction of penalty points. There has been a notable reduction in traffic patrols since the introduction of the speed vans.

How can they generate revenue from people obeying the rules?


If the law (in this case a speed limit) needs changing then go about getting it changed. The method used to catch people breakign that law isnt the target .

alias no.9

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They are a lot cheaper and can work 24/7 without needing rest, leaving real police to do other things.

Its one of the few parts of their job that can be fully automated so is a good thing imo. ANPR is another part of the same story. Means they sdont have to set up time wasting checkpoints and can be doign any number of other things till the system gets a ping and they just have to go after the one person.

I'd actually be more in favour of ANPR based average speed cameras than sampling instantaneously at a fixed location.

MagicSean

alias no.9 wrote: »

Some of the locations they are deployed are effective, many are blatant revenue generation excercises and no I'm not talking from bitter experience, I remain penalty points free since the introduction of penalty points. There has been a notable reduction in traffic patrols since the introduction of the speed vans.

This is the problem. You only know about crashes you read about in the paper. Not all crashes make the paper. There could be 100 material damage accidents on a stretch of road that you know nothing about. There could also be tonnes of complaints about speeding and dangerous driving in an area that you also know nothing about. I can only speak for my own division but every camera in it would seem to be in a good place.

As for the reduction in traffic patrols you notice. Would that not be more to do with the hundreds of Gardaí retiring than the speed vans?

MarkK

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.

SpeedING (exceeding the speed limit) was not a factor but speed plainly was.
If both cars were doing 10 km/h when the collided rather than 90km/h it would have been a very different outcome wouldn't it?

In most real life cases, drivers brake to slow down, so do not hit at their driving speed. The speed they are going when they notice a hazard ahead will be a factor in whether they are able to stop in time, or at least slow down significantly, reducing the level of injury.

Speed may not be the cause of the accident, but the speed on impact determines how serious the injuries are.

Zubeneschamali

MarkK wrote: »

SpeedING (exceeding the speed limit) was not a factor but speed plainly was.

Right, and speed cameras/speed guns will do nothing whatever to help, since both cars were driven at legal speeds.

Nissan doctor

MarkK wrote: »

SpeedING (exceeding the speed limit) was not a factor but speed plainly was.
If both cars were doing 10 km/h when the collided rather than 90km/h it would have been a very different outcome wouldn't it?

In most real life cases, drivers brake to slow down, so do not hit at their driving speed. The speed they are going when they notice a hazard ahead will be a factor in whether they are able to stop in time, or at least slow down significantly, reducing the level of injury.

Speed may not be the cause of the accident, but the speed on impact determines how serious the injuries are.

Of course it would, but this logic is like saying if you were pushed off a building it was the ground that killed you, factually correct but the ground had nothing to do with the incident. Either way, its a mute point and one which can only be solved by restricting all cars to very low speeds, which makes driving pointless altogether.

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Do you really believe that this one table in a single Irish report for one year undermines the well-established finding in road safety research internationally that excess speed is a major factor both in the risk and severity of car crashes?

Do you believe that it undermines the international evidence for the effectiveness of speed surveillance?

I've studied thousands of pages of rsa/UK government reports on road accidents and death statistics. All of them broadly agree that statistically, exceeding the posted speed limit is only a contributor to a minority of cases.

Don't lie, thank you.

Crazy Horse 6

The sooner all cars and motorbikes are limited to a top speed of 100klms an hour the better. Only police and emergency vehicles should exceed this speed.

KTRIC

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Speeding kills. End of.

So by your reasoning if I speed I die. Amazingly enough I'm here to type this post.

Speeding doesn't kill, the stopping kills you. A sudden and immediate deceleration of the human body causes it to crush itself.

sean1141

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Speeding kills. End of.

so how come every racing car driver or person that has 2 or more points for speeding is not dead???


inappropriate speed kills. there are back roads around here that have 80kph limits and there is no way possible to drive at near that speed with any degree of safety... someone doing 150kph on the motorway is less likely to have a crash than someone doing 80kph in 50kph zone in a busy town..

speed is a factor in all crashes but then again 1kph is a speed:p

Nissan doctor

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

The sooner all cars and motorbikes are limited to a top speed of 100klms an hour the better. Only police and emergency vehicles should exceed this speed.

And the sooner that all human freedom of independant thought and decision making is removed by the health and safety communists then the world will be safer.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Are Police and emergency service vehicles are not driven by humans just like every other vehicle on the road?

Atomic Pineapple

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

The sooner all cars and motorbikes are limited to a top speed of 100klms an hour the better. Only police and emergency vehicles should exceed this speed.

The problem is the people in charge actually listen to ridiculous ideas like that.

fearcruach

I think that the main cause of fatalities is poor driver education/lack of observation.

I've had three near misses since I started driving six months ago. All of them were lack of observation on behalf of the other driver. Changing lanes without indicating, Driving straight across a roundabout cutting lanes. That happened twice.

Before I passed my driving test, my fails were on observation. Two of my mates failed on observation as well. It's really being drilled in how important it is, and after being out driving now, I can really see why.

It's not speed that is causing the majority accidents, it's idiots who don't know the rules of the road and never look around them before performing dangerous manoeuvres.

SV

Why are people feeding the troll?

tmcw

SV wrote: »

Why are people feeding the troll?

I agree, these threads are as useful as fog-light threads.

Nissan doctor

SV wrote: »

Why are people feeding the troll?

tmcw wrote: »

I agree, these threads are as useful as fog-light threads.

Is part of the point of a forum not to debate/discuss various issues?

So far there has been none of the usual pointless comments or personal insults that usually come in so I don't see the problem so far.

Scotty #

Tragedy wrote: »

I've studied thousands of pages of rsa/UK government reports on road accidents and death statistics. All of them broadly agree that statistically, exceeding the posted speed limit is only a contributor to a minority of cases.

...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.

puzzle factory

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.

no its not,if there both doing 90kph then the impact is 90kph

Nissan doctor

puzzle factory wrote: »

no its not,if there both doing 90kph then the impact is 90kph

Might I suggest some physics lessons?

SV

I'm talking about the guy who's just throwing out things to rile people up..
such as "Speeding kills. End of" and asking for all vehicles to be limited to 100km/h

seriously, he's not even replying to anyone, yet he's getting responses off you. Classical troll behaviour. It's quite easy to do y'know, despite what your views are.






Anyway, I think it's obvious normal citizens should be limited to 1litre engines cos it's obvious speed kills.
See?

puzzle factory wrote: »

no its not,if there both doing 90kph then the impact is 90kph

lol, yep. Physics lessons for you.

I.S.T.

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.

Why are you stating the obvious? What is your solution? A nationwide blanket limit of 20kmh?

BTW, this thread is about the cause of crashes, not the outcome.

Nissan doctor

SV wrote: »

I'm talking about the guy who's just throwing out things to rile people up..
such as "Speeding kills. End of" and asking for all vehicles to be limited to 100km/h

seriously, he's not even replying to anyone, yet he's getting responses off you. Classical troll behaviour. It's quite easy to do y'know, despite what your views are.






Anyway, I think it's obvious normal citizens should be limited to 1litre engines cos it's obvious speed kills.
See?





lol, yep. Physics lessons for you.

Apologies, I though you ment that the OP was the troll:o