Speed Doesn’t Kill - It’s Official
2 Oct, 2007
37 Comments 
There is only so much we can do at CarAdvice, we can show you all the evidence, we can tell you why, we can protest and we can advise, but one thing we can’t do, is change the road rules.
In our eternal struggle against the Speed-Camera-Madness, we are happy to report there is finally solid evidence from a reputable source that shows Speed is rarely the cause or contributing factor of road accidents.
When we say a reputable source, we mean the UK Department for Transport, the main body in charge of Britain’s roads. The study, titled Road Casualties Great Britain 2006, studied over 145,798 road collisions in the UK last year
After millions of tax payer dollars have gone to waste in the state governments’ Speed-Kills propaganda campaign, the evidence suggests otherwise.
“‘Exceeding speed limit’ was attributed to 3 percent of cars involved in accidents,” the report stated.
Let’s go ahead and add trucks, motorcycles and other vehicles and the figure rises to only five percent overall.
In Australia, speed camera infringements are on a steady climb, and so is the road toll. It doesn’t take a genius to realise speed cameras do not save lives.
So what are the main causes of vehicle accidents? UK Police examine up to 77 factors on the scene of an accident.
“The most common factor is failed to look properly which contributed to 35 percent of accidents. Four of the six most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction,” the report stated.
As for fatal accidents, the report blamed loss of control in 35 per cent of fatal accidents.
Presented with these figures, what would the Australian transport authorities do? As we’ve mentioned hundreds of times before, would advanced driver-training be a viable option? Perhaps, but it’s easier, and more profitable to simply put a few more speed cameras about and call it a day.
It’s time we put an end to this carnage, the transport authorities need to take full responsibility for continuing to ignore the real causes behind the rising road toll.
You can read the entire report here (5MB PDF).
Alborz Fallah
Location: Home / Speeding, Road Rules, Safety / ...
Rate Post: 
(7 votes, average: 3.86 out of 5)
Loading ...
-
Print it:
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Damn right speed doesn’t kill, at least on it’s own!
Great post Alborz!
(Report)
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Finally! Excellent find.
So who wants to join me in sending this article along with the report to all the idiotic transport mininsters? Or better yet, the Police commissioners
(Report)
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Aw… yes… this is the reason I keep coming back to this site, because you are not scared of stating the truth, as obvious as it may be.
Good on you!
If only the rest of the Australian motoring world would stop being so damn slow and question the authorities.
(Report)
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Its true Speed doesn’t kill ,its the sudden stop!
(Report)
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Well said Bavarian.
(Report)
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
As Clarkson would put it, going fast doesn’t kill you, stopping fast does. :p
(Report)
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
What I don’t understand is that if speeding kills, why do we have different speed limits, why not have the same limit everywhere? cause apparently “every k over is a killer” so 61 I’m dead,what happens when I do 100 or god forbid 110? Do I vaporise ?
Good post, well done! Now to get those speed laws changed :P
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 am
it just goes to show that speed cameras are just revenue raising for the goverment as if they care about the road toll.
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 am
so all this B/S about speed kills and it only contributes to a small percentage accidents hope the goverment gets this article
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:38 am
I’ve never believed in speed cameras, especially since you have to spend more than half the time on the road with your eyes glued to the freakin speedometer and not on what’s coming up ahead.
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Well this article finally puts an end to crap our politicians feed us in relation to ’speed kills’ who had any doubt?
Well done on the article!!
How is that you may pass 2 speed camara vans on one stretch of road and in 2 weeks you find out you were caught speeding twice when in reality you can’t even remember that particular moment, yet if a policman pulled you over with a radar gun on that day, at the moment, you would remember that you were speeding and more importantly you would have slowed down and stopped speeding!! while a speed camera doesn’t stop you speeding on that day, at the moment, meanwhile you could crashed and had a speed related accident!!
Yeah speed cameras aren’t money makers…
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Ha-ha! Do you people know what LOGIC is?
“failed to look properly, which contributed to 35 percent of accidents”
“loss of control in 35 per cent of fatal accidents”
Do not tell me speeding is not a risk factor here! How many of you ever lost control traveling 40 km/h, or perhaps you all are Supermen here and your reaction is adjustable to the speed you are traveling?
Saying “speed does not kill” is tantamount to saying “alcohol does not cause alcoholism” just because there is 90% of water in the bottle.
Grow up! If you rely on speed cameras and police to tell you your speed then no amount of “advanced driver training” is going to fix it.
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:56 am
I’d suggest that all the report highlights is (my biggest beef on the road) the lowering standard of driver skill (link). The state government policies of ’speed kills’ and speed cameras (conveniently borrowed from the UK) seems to have created a generation of lax, unskilled and unaware drivers.
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:32 am
Obviously LOGIC is lost on you…
It’s been proven in some cases that increasing speed has dropped the rate of accidents and can increase alertness.
The whole picture is not black and white Andrew.
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
How’s this for logic.
Every day in AU the various governments raise $millions from their money grabbing cameras.
In each case (arguably, but that’s another debate) a driver was speeding, and lived to pay the fine.
Therefore, in each case, speed did NOT kill, or put it another way, far more drivers are NOT killed while speeding than ARE killed while speeding.
Therefore speeding is safer than not speeding, but costs more.
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
Wow, all the speed cameras must be working, if speed isn’t a factor any more. Well done authorities lmao etc…
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Andrew you can lose control of your car doing 40kmh, Ive seen it.
If someone crashes and the reason is because they failed to look it wouldnt matter if they were speeding, THEY WEREN’T PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD. More than likely a lot of them would of had their eyes glued to the speedo because someone said “speed kills”
And Andrew ask anyone here, when you do faster speeds you tend to concentrate more, more accidents happen in cities and towns than on country roads due to people NOT PAYING ATTENTION because they think because they are going slower they are safer.
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I agree with bavarian’s comments. It’s the sudden stop that kills you after reaching high speeds.
I’ve been visiting your website for about six months now and your constant promotion of ridiculous articles like this as well as promoting super fast cars is very frustrating. And I think that very shortly I will find myself stop coming to your site alltogether.
Any research and testing can be slanted to suit the people who paid for it.
Speed does kill together with other factors such as lack of driving skills, tiredness, not being focused on the road etc…
Just remember how some of the great drivers (Brock, Senna, Villeneuve) died. It sure wasn’t because they were slow or driving slow cars.
Regards
Frank
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Frank my aim is simple,
We need to stop blaming speed as the main cause of accidents, because it is not.
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Alborz,
Complacant & selfish driving is a problem & speed cameras are the classic blunt instrument used in reaction to some behind the wheel who display poor skill levels such as speeding.
Skill levels of most drivers are poor,most won’t admit it.
If at some stage speed limits are raised investment in driver training,safety checks on vehicles & the required upgrading of roads would be needed.160km/h on a two lane freeway with merging traffic shared with trucks?
Have been told I drive like an old man by one who has had annoying small accidents until she had a decent one with kids on board,she is no longer the aggressive,heavy accelerating driver.On suburban streets & crowded freeways excessive speed is lethal & indicates judgement & perception skills are compromised for reasons well known.
The inattentive who usually speed & those who use speed in inappropriate places both display negative traits.
The frustrated driver of the high performance vehicle driven in a manner disregarding other users,EG flooring the Porsche turbo surrounded by others who made rear end move offline or the great effort by one GTR Skyline who passed on the left side of traffic merging onto a freeway full of trucks leaving no room for error by any one,are as complacent as the mobile on ear/texting/ paperwork in hand or the inconsiderate driver doing 80km/h in the 100 zone.
Have seen good cars pulled over with expired registration.What else do they cut corners on?
Basics like brake fluid & pads,coolant,tyres & steering?
It shows a car culture that is wanting.
A big task to do someting about.
(Report)
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
People that come here regularly would have seen my opinions on speed, so I won’t go into another one of my rants.
But I will say this…. I doubt the Australian Government will take on this information. I believe they will dismis it as bullshit or say that the roads there are different…. make up some excuse. They know they’re on a good thing, why would they say otherwise.
Steve
(Report)
October 4th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Interesting points in the PDF - Exceeding the speed limit as a contributing factor was only 5% of all accidents - whereas traveling too fast for conditions is double that. (p.44)
What are we doing about the other 90-95% contributory factors such as;
Failing to look properly - 35%
Failing to judge others speed/path - 18%
Poor turn or maneuver - 14%?
Standard project methodology is to tackle the large contributing factors first and then fine-tune the small stuff once the big issues have been sorted.
This focus on speed only makes sense as a political band-aid come revenue windfall scenario. The statistics are pointing out very clearly why people crash and get killed, and it’s NOT predominantly over limit speeding as authorities would have us believe. It makes no sense that we are we attacking with vigour that element which will make the least impact.
(Report)
October 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Frank said: Just remember how some of the great drivers (Brock, Senna, Villeneuve) died. It sure wasn’t because they were slow or driving slow cars.
Well that’s true, it wasn’t because they were slow, or driving slow cars, but that’s not the issue here. No-one has been fined for driving a fast car, nor have they been fined for being a fast driver, they’re fined (which is what people are objecting to) for *exceeding the posted limit*. None of the drivers you mentioned died while exceeding the posted speed limit.
What people are saying is that a lot of irrelevant stuff is being brought into the debate to support huge penalties for *exceeding the posted limit* (usually called “speeding”)
You’re not helping by bringing in even more completely irrelevant examples into the debate. By definition, no racing driver is ever “speeding” during a race. (ok, well there are pit speed limits if you want to be really picky I suppose)
The discussion here is about enforcement of arbitrary speed limits in an unfair way.
To argue that speed limits are set to ensure safety is just absurd. Plenty of research (not “slanted”, but good solid research) shows that lowering speed limits and average speeds does not improve overall safety.
If you want to talk about slanting, you need to look at the “anti speeding” stuff. For instance, the oft quoted “increase” in death rates on American tollways after the speed limit was raised back up to 70 mph from 55. Increases of 50% and more get bandied about. What isn’t mentioned is that during the 55 mph limit period most drivers avoided the tollways and travelled on local roads, after the speed limit went back up the traffic volume on the tollways increased by as much as 400% with only a 50% increase in fatalities. Dramatic decreases in death rate on the local roads accompanied the change in traffic patterns and the total rate fell *sharply*.
Then there’s the *fab* 50 km/h limit in towns, to save the pedestrians. Strangely by the time a vehicle strikes a pedestrian at 50 km/h the fatality/total incapacitation rate is approaching 100% (83% - DOT NHSTA 1999). But everyone says some rubbish along the lines that it gives you more time to react and avoid hitting the pedestrian. Well that’s true for *each* event, however the converse is also true that it gives you more time on the road during which you will be exposed to more random events (which a pedestrian stepping out infront of you essentially is). The two effects cancel out *exactly* for the events where you strike the pedestrian before having time to react.
The whole debate is swamped in rubbish thinking, and a zero grasp of probability.
(Report)
October 8th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Jason,
The events you hope to “cancel out” by passing the street quicker are there no matter what your speed is.
It is the same as running in the rain against walking in the same rain. On average you will get hit by the same amount of droplets (if not more).
The same with pedestrians stepping from between the cars, doors opening, or someone hitting the brakes suddenly in front of you, etc. All these events are NOT DEPENDANT on your speed. In some cases you can “attend” to more of them on the same stretch of road if your speed is higher.
Should you drive FASTER, you’ll have LESS TIME to react - is this concept that hard to grasp?
Further more, while you enthusiastically discuss the findings of this report, it seems that you did “faild to look properly” for this paragraph (p.36): “It is important to note that where some factors may have contributed to the cause of an accident it may be difficult for a police officer attending the scene after the accident has occurred to identify these factors. As a result some contributory factors may be less likely to be reported. For instance,
while factors such as emergency vehicle on a call or defective traffic signals may be more obvious for a police officer attending the scene and so may be reported with some confidence, for other factors, ***such as exceeding speed limit*** or driver nervous, uncertain or panicked, it may not always be possible for the police officer to identify whether these factors took place and contributed to the accident. In addition, contributory factors are disclosable in court and police officers would require
some supporting evidence before reporting certain factors.”
Do you see? There is no reliable way to tell the exact speed of vehicles involved in an accident… for now. But thanks to you guys, we will soon get “black boxes” in every car.
Also, the report shows that while the number of casualties for car drivers/passengers is on decline, the number of pedestrians and riders killed or injured is not going down at the same rate, and I am afraid this happening mostly due to the progress in the car manufacturing process, rather than improved drivers’ skills.
So do not kid yourselves - it is your car that is getting better at protecting you and ones you hit, not you…
(Report)
October 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Raise your hand if you read the report? I mean actually opened the pdf document, and haven’t just read “summary” posted above?
This article is fine if your into selective reporting.
Here are a couple of points you might have missed.
1. The report outlines that “exceeding the speed limit” was a factor in 14% of fatal crashes. Not fender benders, fatal crashes. Now, take an example, say 1,000 people were killed on the roads annually, thats 140 dead people, that lost their lives due to exceeding the speed limit.
2. If you actually read the report, you’ll see that the report suggests that the “exceeding the speed limit” factor is likely to be under reported. So maybe more than 14% of fatal crashes were a result of “exceeding the speed limit”.
Articles like this just come across as being written by someone that’s received one to many speeding fines. If you don’t want a speeding ticket, don’t speed. There’s no mystery or conspiracy theory behind the whole thing.
(Report)
October 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Excellent article.
The present enforcement policies are increasing the number of deaths.
Amongst all the other evidence, look at Victoria’s high road toll last weekend.
The authorities conceed that the main cause was people not driving to suit the conditions.
But the authorities’ own policies are encouraging people to disregard driving conditions. Radars/cameras continue to be set up on the safest stetches of road during fine weather, and people are booked for an ever-decreasingly few k’s over the limit.
The public are definitely being brainwashed to drive to the limit, not to a safe speed for the conditions.
Why not return to common sense. Encourage driving at a speed that’s safe for the prevailing conditions. Please book people for driving inappropriately in bad weather and/or when there are loads of kids/pedestrians around - even if travelling below the posted limit. But you must equally turn a blind eye to the 120s and 130s on open freeways under good conditions.
Common sense does not have to totally disappear from modern society, does it?
(Report)
October 10th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Peter - How can you possibly say this?:
“The present enforcement policies are increasing the number of deaths.”
You do realize that Victoria is currently on track to record the lowest road toll in its history?
http://arrivealive.vic.gov.au/rtoll.php
(Report)
October 10th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Dear Confused,
As I said, allowing people to travel somewhat above the posted limit when conditions are safe (as happens in many places in the world) will have a negligible effect on the toll, almost by definition.
Fining people for travelling at an inappropriate speed only when there is an increased danger will reduce the toll. And will encourage people to get in the habit of driving at a speed which is appropriate to the conditions, improving their defensive driving and reducing future risk. (For the avoidance of confusion, the appropriate speed does not necessarily equal the posted limit)
I agree that Victoria’s toll is at a historical low. But please don’t lull yourself into a false sense of security. If you look at graphs of Victoria’s death/accident statistics vs other states/countries, you will find that Victoria’s death/injury statistics, and improvement in statistics, are only average for developed states/nations. Most states’/countries’ graphs are following much the same trend, and Victoria’s performance is nothing special.
(Sorry I don’t have a reference for this data handy - but I think it’s from someone totally impartial like the ABS).
The stats include places with no speed limit on motorways, and places where police turn a blind eye to exceeding the speed limit where it is safe. (Eg I lived in the UK from ‘93 to 2003, and like lots of people, almost always did 130 to 160 on motorways, traffic/conditions permitting. They’re posted at 70 mph, ie 112. Yet UK motorways statistically remain the safest roads in the world by most measures)
Hope this answers your question.
Now to really confuse you, I’d ask you to consider the costs vs benefits of the present policy (as far as one can quantify these things). The government’s own stated total cost of the Victorian road toll (is, from memory, $4.8bn. This equates to something like 5 mins time per day per adult. (Do some sums yourself). In other words, if the present enforcement policy costs everyone over 5 mins of their time per day compared with a common sense approach to enforcement - and arguably it does - the economic cost of the wasted time is greater than the cost of the entire road toll.
Check this out yourself.
Unfortunately, in the modern world, it seems that the following take precedence: emotion, expediency, revenue raising, governments being seen to do the “right thing” whether or not it really is, and the “blame culture” where somebode else is responsible for the safety of the individual.
(Report)
October 11th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Peter,
Agree,conditioning to driving to the limit is a road psychology issue.Hazard perceptions vary between individuals in a 60 zone people do not see hazards as others because they perceive they are travelling at a “slow” speed.As I said complacency is a problem.The complacent driver will speed & drift 10k’s over the limit among other issues.
But has the cost of the road toll been degraded to the level of a cost/benefit analysis,mere time & money?A spreadsheet cannot convey the lost friend,partner or relative.Ten lives were taken last weekend it is raining again in Melbourne tonight & bad weather is predicted again this weekend.
Some never slow down for the conditions or visibility.
Even in heavy rain some still want to do 100+ on crowded freeways.They have no idea what is ahead.
Interested to know if a study has been done where the greatest concentrations of incidents occur inluding non fatalities in which speed zones.This could be skewed to present roads with higher speeds being represented as safer not taking into account the type of road eg 110km/h zone CALDER FREEWAY.Are you the same Peter who confessed to 180km/h on the Monash?
(Report)
October 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
David,
I’ve copied your notes, and added a few comments (the upper case being to differentiate my response, not because I’m shouting):
Peter,
Agree,conditioning to driving to the limit is a road psychology issue.Hazard perceptions vary between individuals in a 60 zone people do not see hazards as others because they perceive they are travelling at a “slow” speed.As I said complacency is a problem.The complacent driver will speed & drift 10k’s over the limit among other issues.
SO THE SOLUTION FORCED UPON US (WHEN DRIVING IN THE COUNTRY) IS TO USE THE CRUISE CONTROL. NOW, 80% OF THE TIME, I’M DRIVING SLOWER THAN THE SAFE SPEED FOR THE CONDITIONS (AND GETTING VERY FRUSTRATED), 10% ABOUT RIGHT, AND 10% OF THE TIME, I’M DRIVING FASTER THAN I WOULD IF I HAD MY FOOT ON THE ACCELERATOR. OVERALL, IT’S MORE DANGEROUS. AND I HATE IT. BUT AT LEAST I WON’T GET A TICKET, AND THE GOVERNMENT’S HAPPY BECAUSE THEY THINK I’M A SAFER DRIVER.
ALSO, YOU MUST CONCEDE, THERE CAN BE REASONS OTHER THAN COMPLACENCY (OR LOW IQ) FOR TRAVELLING 10 k’s OVER THE LIMIT.
But has the cost of the road toll been degraded to the level of a cost/benefit analysis,mere time & money?A spreadsheet cannot convey the lost friend,partner or relative.Ten lives were taken last weekend it is raining again in Melbourne tonight & bad weather is predicted again this weekend.
I MENTIONED THAT PEOPLE LET EMOTION GET IN THE WAY OF COMMON SENSE WHEN IT SUITS THEM.
IF COSTS vs BENEFITS WERE NOT THE BASIS OF OUR DECISION MAKING, AND THE SAVING OF LIVES REALLY WAS PARAMOUNT, THEN EVERY ROAD IN SUBURBAN MELBOURNE WOULD HAVE ARMCO ALONG THE KERBS, AND PEDISTRIAN OVERPASSES OR UNDERPASSES AT EVERY CORNER. AND THE SPEED LIMIT WOULD BE 20 km/h SO IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIE IN AN ACCIDENT. AND MOTOR BIKES WOULD BE BANNED. AND BIKES. AND FAR FAR MORE TAX MONEY WOULD BE SPENT ON HEALTH. AND FOOTY, RUGBY, MOTOCROSS, HANG-GLIDING, ETC ETC WOULD BE BANNED. NOT TO MENTION BANNING ANYTHING OTHER THAN HEALTH FOOD. A PLANE COULD BE DESIGNED SUCH THAT PASSENGERS SURVIVE A CRASH (THIS IS A FACT), BUT WOULD YOU PREFER TO PAY $10000 RATHER THAN $500 FOR A FLIGHT, TO SAVE POSSIBLE GRIEF FOR YOUR RELATIVES?ETC ETC.
OF COURSE EVERY RATIONAL DECISION SHOULD COLDLY WEIGH UP THE COSTS AND THE BENEFITS. AND SHOULD LEAVE SOME LIBERTY TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
Some never slow down for the conditions or visibility.
Even in heavy rain some still want to do 100+ on crowded freeways.They have no idea what is ahead. AGREE. AND THE PRESENT POLICY DOES NOT ADDRESS THIS.
Interested to know if a study has been done where the greatest concentrations of incidents occur inluding non fatalities in which speed zones.This could be skewed to present roads with higher speeds being represented as safer not taking into account the type of road eg 110km/h zone CALDER FREEWAY. I THINK THERE IS LOTS OF DATA AROUND. AND I REMAIN CONVINCED RADARS / SPEED CAMERAS ARE SELDOM LOCATED IN THE BLACK SPOTS. THEY ARE ON THE STRAIGHT STRETCHES WHERE NOBODY HAS EVER HAD AN ACCIDENT (EXCEPT MAYBE FALLING ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL - THE BIGGEST SINGLE CAUSE OF ROAD DEATHS IN AUSTRALIA NOWDAYS BY MANY MEASURES - AND AGAIN ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EXTENDED TRIP DURATION AND LACK OF DRIVER STIMULATION OF THE PRESENT POLICY)
Are you the same Peter who confessed to 180km/h on the Monash?
NO I’M NOT. BUT I HAVE LIVED OVERSEAS FOR MANY YEARS, AND REGULARLY DRIVEN AT 180, WITHOUT ANY ACCIDENTS OR NEAR MISSES. IT’S SAFE, WHEN CONDITIONS PERMIT, AND YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SAFETY OF YOURSELF AND FOR OTHERS. AND ENJOYABLE. DRIVING ABOVE 110 IN AUSTRALIA HAS BECOME A BIT LIKE SEX. YOU MIGHT FEEL APPREHENSIVE ABOUT IT WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER DONE IT (AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IT), BUT IT’S THE MOST NATURAL THING IN THE WORLD WHEN YOU GET USED TO IT. COME TO THINK OF IT, SEX (other than with the missus, not too wild to avoid a heart attack, and only for making children) SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE ABOVE LIST OF THINGS THAT SHOULD BE BANNED IF THE RISK OF DEATH / ILLNESS / UPSETTING RELATIVES IS ALL IMPORTANT. IS THIS WHAT SOCIETY REALLY WANTS, BECAUSE IT’S WHERE WE JUST ABOUT ARE WITH THE PRESENT ENFORCEMENT OF SPEEDING LEGISLATION?
(Report)
October 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I’ll be the first to agree that speed may not be the primary contributing factor in most accidents, but it is a contributing factor in well more than 3-5% of crashes. Perhaps before you all gobble up this report as a way to justify the irresponsible and inconsiderate driving behaviour that is speeding, look pass the face value of the findings to the methodology at hand. The section of the report referred to here analysed data from a police reporting system on crash causality. There are a number of drawbacks to using this type of data to assess contributing factors in road crashes.
A major drawback of this is human error. It is much harder for the police to assess the impact of speed as a contributing factor after the fact. Its not as obvious as other factors and they can only speculate on its contribution. Given that most crashes are caused by a multitude of factors the police will generally choose more salient factors and report these.
Secondly, as one blogger stated, many of the factors listed as regular causes (such as lost control and other driver errors) are synonomous with exceeding the speed limit and driving too fast for the conditions.
Finally, the UK has a very different road network system to Australia so these results do not necessarilly generalise to the Australian context. When you control for traffic flow and traffic density (two major predictors of crash risk highlighted in the literature) its not hard to understand why many crashes occur at relatively low speeds. This does not mean however that crash risk and crash severity are not affected by speed.
It is almost laughable for someone to argue speed is not a factor in increasing crash risk and severity. The laws of physics and kinetic energy state that the faster you hit something the greater the impact. Its irrefutable. So crash severity undoubtedly increases with speed. As for crash risk, you travel further in the time it takes you to react to a situation in the driving enviroment, you take longer to stop, and you have less vehicle control and stability. Will someone please explain to me how they think this will not possibly lead to increased risk of crash involvement?
I have stated only the main drawbacks of the selective way these report findings have been published on this site. Sadly, I’m pretty sure everything I’ve just wrote will fall on deaf ears as most people on this blog are hell-bent on justifying their inconsiderate and irresponsible driving habits.
Oh and to the blogger who stated they speed and don’t crash more than they speed and crash and therefore its safer to speed???? Yes, you might speed and not crash more often than you speed and crash but the risk is still very real. Much like unprotected sex .. you could do it often and not get an STD but the risk is very real. People play lotto on the insanely off chance they might win, however justify speeding on the fact they are more likely not to crash then they are to crash?? There is a better chance you’ll write yourself off in an accident then win the lotto … think about it.
(Report)
October 29th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Dave,
Much of what you say is correct. (Almost) everyone appreciates that an accident will be more severe if you are travelling faster. Ditto regarding being able to interpret statistics to demonstrate just about anything.
However, it is clear from what you say that your mind is already closed on the campaign against “Speed Camera Madness”:
You mention:
“the irresponsible and inconsiderate driving behaviour that is speeding”
and
“exceeding the speed limit and driving too fast for the conditions”
If your mind is already made up that exceeding the speed limit automatically equals driving too fast for the conditions, then there is little point in continuing this dialogue. [It’s a bit like trying to question someone’s belief in God using logic. You can’t win]
Similarly, if your starting point is that everybody who exceeds the speed limit is being irresponsible and inconsiderate, again, all your conclusions follow automatically. [I, and many responsible drivers, would find this assumption quite offensive.]
If I have misinterpreted your “starting point”, please clarify.
It might sound a bit pompous, but I’d say the intelligent bloggers are trying to elevate the disussion above these circular arguments, pursuing their vision of a fairer and more effective road transport system.
Unfortunately, there will always be a few bloggers who are trying to justify their truly irresponsible driving habits; and you will always be able to shoot down the responsible majority who want something better, by association with the minority.
It’s the same on the road. It’s is the majority who carry the burden of the ludicrously enforced traffic policy, when really, police resources should be focused on the dangerous minority.
I’m not singling you out Dave. You are part of a world-wide phenomenon where societies find it increasingly difficult to differentiate between: giving a child a small smack vs child abuse; a paper cut vs a dangerous industrial accident; food poisoning vs “Warning, may contain nuts” on a packet of peanuts; etc. People have got to apply a bit of common sense. Getting a ticket for doing 55 along a wide highway passing through a sleepy NSW country town (for example) does not strike me as sensible.
(Report)
November 27th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
So what we are saying here is that on open highways some guy in a beaten up old crap box is safe at 100 and Im doing 120 in my RS4 and im unsafe even though the quoted stopping distances by the authorities including reaction times is a third in this particular car and on top of that I can do a full swerve without loosing it…thanks to modern technology. Should I rely on this, no, should I use my own common sense to judge my speed, most definetley. I’ve found myself doing 80 or less in a 100 zone in bad conditions yet others are still doing 100, quit amusing seeing them aqua planning and yet they still keep going.
What we are all saying is we are all put in this tight little safe box and suppose to be happy about it.
Ive been to many countries. My conclusion is people should go to Germany to see how its done and go to China to see how its not done. In China they generally dont do over 40 but their road deaths are unbelievable.
Pretty much increasing speed limits on major carraige ways by 10km/hr would not make them less safe but would atleast increase capacity. I havent seen any study done on it but I am sure it would help. On longer routes on double carraige ways these should be the same in France where atleast the authorities have marked 130 in the dry and 110 in the wet. Take a 4 hour trip at 100 would on take around 3 hours at 130 thus reducing exposure on the road and fatigue the other major killer.
Now seeing some people want to post links to websites and quote figures then atleast I will mention this lot who want to bring some common sense back to this country.
www.ldp.com.au
(Report)
November 28th, 2007 at 12:03 am
in reaponce to Andrew (Saying “speed does not kill” is tantamount to saying “alcohol does not cause alcoholism” just because there is 90% of water in the bottle.
Grow up! ) how much of your brain are you using? are you trying to tell me that if i drink a beer i will become an alcoholic. im guessing your age is sixty plus at least and there for i am sure you do have problems with your reaction time. its sensationalists like you that are the reason my insurance costs so much. if you want to save lives i sugest you look at your self first.
(Report)
December 10th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Any comments about the four 17-18 year olds killed on the Westgate yesterday evening?
Car wrapped around a tree. Rear end at right angles to the front.
Probably died instantly(I HOPE),then incinerated.
Speed 140-160km/h was the estimate in a 100 zone.
State of the vehicle & witness statements back this up.
Why do they speed?Inexperience,youth,bullet proof ego?
Doubt that the road is the issue.It is ok at 100-110km/h
Police are looking at the CCTV trying to piece together a sequence of events.
Demonising police serves no purpose.
I’m not trying to score points off this tragic event.
In this instance it is easy to say cameras didn’t save the lives of four very young men.
The safety message just does not get through to some.
(Report)
July 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
This is such a load of horseshit! Why do some people feel like it is their right to speed. Nothing you’re doing is so important that you need to speed. If you speed for fun - well that is sport - which you should be doing at the appropriate venue. I’ve been driving for a long time - and speeding when I was young know-all idiot, and I firmly believe that speeding is a major cause of accidents. The most common reason being a driver being so full of himself that he thinks he can handle a car at high speed, when in fact he doesn’t have the skills - none of you are any exception. Get off the roads and leave them for responsible adults.
(Report)
July 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Speed Doesn’t Kill…..It’s the SUDDEN stop!
No matter what speed your dirving along at 120l 240Km/h
you’re going to be relatively safe provided you dont hit anything thato bstructs you from continuing in a particular direction or encounter anything which forces you to change direction at speed.
Physics - a moving object will continue to travel in a given direction until/unless it comes into contact with an immovable object or another moving object with equal or greater weight or force [velocity/speed]
(Report)