Road Deaths Prompt Driving Test Shake-Up

[co-op]

Given your previous aggressiveness in debate, I think this looks quite a lot like a climbdown, as it should.

I was being pretty short with Garfield because I have never seen such blatant nonsense on a thread on the internet before. I've eased off because I now think he's utterly confused rather than mendacious.

Now you've talked about "aunt sally" arguments, and this looks like one to me.

What I've seen is people sneering at the idea that speed is the overriding factor - the "only speed kills" argument. That gets made by omission of other factors, and by inference on the basis that the law enforcement focus is now overwhelmingly aimed at control of speed.

I don't think you've got what an Aunt Sally is.

I ticked off the carheads for using an Aunt Sally; meaning the construction of a ludicrous argument and then atributing that to an opponent in order to be able to win a simple victory.

As I asked - where has anyone, ever said "only speed kills" - it's transparently absurd.

I am really lost when you then accuse me of making an Aunt Sally argument myself in the process of all that.

This is for two reasons;

1) there's already been at least one post (by detective boy) which made exactly that claim - so it's no Aunt Sally it's literally there on the thread.

2) you go on in your lengthy post to make exactly the same claim yourself, here it is...in all its glory

So when people get frustrated with those who insist on seeing speed as the be-all and end-all in road safety, this is why: because, by starting from the premise that speed is the problem, they completely fail to take into account all of the other factors.

This kind of silly debating undermines any pretence at trying to make progress here and likewise undermines your sanctimony at my "aggressiveness". Let me repeat; no one has ever said this so who are you aiming at here?

You make many worthwhile points in your description of the junction near your home. I can take them because I don't believe that only speed kills - it's clearly a complex, multi-factorial issue. It'll be very hard to analyse exactly what caused any given fatality.

All I've done (apart from try to coach Garfield in some of the basic concepts of what a "source" is when used in academic debate) is point out that there is some very well researched stuff out there done by intelligent people who have found that speed is a major contributory cause of crash killing. And thus the speed-dismissers at the start of the thread were just wrong in fact.

Of course there are many other issues - some as you say in the case of your local junction masked by the speed issue - believe me I understand that.

Quoting single-issue boy-racer sites like SafeSpeed who have decided that any "attack" on car-drivers' right to speed is out-of-order is slightly different from citing (as I have) people like the Transport Research Laboratory by the way.

 

[co-op]

your links please ...

we're all waiting oh and btw what's with all the ad hom's ... is it that being shown up repeadtly by a dyslexic is in someway demeaning for you??

think it's appropreate to call a dyslexic illiterate do you?

you've been shown to totally miss the point repeadtly been shown to have failed to cite or provided evidence, attempt to barrack and bully when challenged as to the vailidity your claims...

or are you know again attempting to claim that the information posted isn't relevant...

come back when you can provide evidence of your claims...

or can actually debate....

but if you're coming back merely to rip the piss out of someones disablity then i'd suggest you stop before you mark yourself out as a bigger pratt than you already are doing...

Garfield I understand your spelling fine. It's the points you are trying to make, (or how they relate in any way to anything I've said) that are completely opaque.

The fact that you ave also chosen to brag continually of how you are vanquishing me in debate makes this look more like you've got an ego problem than anything else.

For example the DfT report you linked to; you clearly haven't read it or if you have, you haven't understood it. What was the "12.5%" figure you were brandishing earlier all about?

I've provided you with a credible source about 20 times now for the claim I made about speed fatalities. The fact that you don't understand that, I can do nothing about - and is not a function of your dyslexia.

 

[chainsaw cat]

Another thread where road safety is reduced to physics.

Apart from Agnesdavies (Ithangew, Agnes) has anyone looked at the issue of young drivers, experience, mental state, 'psycholgy of safety'?


Or is it all engineering and policing?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Another thread where road safety is reduced to physics.

Apart from Agnesdavies (Ithangew, Agnes) has anyone looked at the issue of young drivers, experience, mental state, 'psycholgy of safety'?


Or is it all engineering and policing?

have youloked at the accident stats...

It's not the young drivers who are the problem but those who are 40 +, although the younger drivers are dying more when they do have accidents they aren't the biggest speeders or group who have accidents....

 

[co-op]

Another thread where road safety is reduced to physics.

Apart from Agnesdavies (Ithangew, Agnes) has anyone looked at the issue of young drivers, experience, mental state, 'psycholgy of safety'?


Or is it all engineering and policing?

I'd see speed as an issue more of mental state and 'psychology of safety' than one of engineering and policing (although as Agnesdavies has pointed out - engineering can affect those perceptions at any given point).

On this topic, the Guardian had an article on driving tests on Wednesday (3 September - that's a "source" Garfield, find it yourself) and it mentioned an interesting paradox observed by the Driving Standards Authority. When examining its pass-fail statistics it noted an "apparently perverse relationship"; drivers who did best on the practical test [ie the driving bit] had the highest rate of crashes subsequently.

That's a bit of a challenge to those who like to think that this is all a question of 'driving skill'. It seems it may be more to do with emotional and psychological competences than "driving skill". I'd put speeding right in this area personally - "good" drivers often over-rate their own skill and ability to avert future danger. They are also quite poor at reading other peoples' intentions and (ime) intolerant of other peoples' different attitudes to shared space.

 

[Jessiedog]

The report was published in 2000. That's eight (8) years old, not 13 as I've pointed out a couple of times.

I can't find a link to a full publication of the report on the internet - that's not unusual many things haven't been posted on the internet, especially copyrighted ones. You'll be able to get it in a library.

Perhaps you (or rich!,) could cut and past the relevant section of the report if you can't provide an easy link? (I don't want to have to answer anything to access it, but will read the report if provided).

- bless. Your credibility went out the window for good on this thread when you started citing a DfT report to back up some weird "12.5%" figure - which I now think you've plucked out of the air - but the report you cite doesn't contain the figure you claim - in fact the report you cite is ABOUT SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT ALTOGETHER

I think you're wrong here.

The report clearly states that:

The following section lists the factors included in the original TRL-devised system, and for each one gives an indication of the percentage of accidents at which that factor was selected (based on 2001 data collected by 13 police forces. Total number of accidents: 60,979)

Woof

 

[rich!]

Perhaps you (or rich!,) could cut and past the relevant section of the report if you can't provide an easy link? (I don't want to have to answer anything to access it, but will read the report if provided).

I don't want to post too much of it, but the following bits stuck out:

For comparison purposes, an equivalent relationship for
rural roads (see Section 4.3.1) is shown in Figure 9 as a
dotted line. The constant percentage relationship derived
from Finch et al, 1994 (see Section 2.3) is also shown, as a
horizontal line set at the value of 5 per cent.
The curve for urban roads shows that:
l on average, for ¡Æslower¡Ç urban roads with a mean speed
of 20miles/h there is a potential saving in accident
frequency of 7 per cent if this mean speed can be
reduced by 1mile/h;
l on average, on ¡Æfaster¡Ç urban roads with a mean speed of
34miles/h the equivalent saving is likely to be 2 per cent.

following a report by Solomon (1964) which suggested that
the accident involvement rates for drivers rises with their
deviation from the mean traffic speed. Garber and Gadirau
(1988) found that speed variability was an important
predictor of accidents for a cross-sectional sample of US
rural highways. The recent TRL work not only confirms the
importance of variation in speed, but also suggests that in
estimating the impact of speed on accidents, speed variation
cannot be regarded as a substitute for mean traffic speeds
both factors are important.

Garf's point is that the authors have taken a large number of other reports, examined the data from them, and built a series of statistical models, which they then are extracting rules from - they don't yet have a model of why those rules are true, but they do appear to fit the data sets well.

Several of the rules seem to make sense in terms of the obvious interpretation of behaviour (for example, the speed variability one above).

 

[Jessiedog]

I don't want to post too much of it, but the following bits stuck out:




Garf's point is that the authors have taken a large number of other reports, examined the data from them, and built a series of statistical models, which they then are extracting rules from - they don't yet have a model of why those rules are true, but they do appear to fit the data sets well.

Several of the rules seem to make sense in terms of the obvious interpretation of behaviour (for example, the speed variability one above).

I'm looking for the data that supports co-op's assertion that excessive speed is a factor in 33% of fatal accidents.


At the end of the day, it's an apples and oranges comparison, simply because the data provided by garf refers to excessive speed being a factor in 12.5% of "accidents" and co-op refers to "fatal accidents", so both could, in fact, be accurate.

That said, it would seem that even TfL/TRL are now backing away from the 33% figure, though I can't find any out-and-out retractions......perhaps garf could pull some relevant info' from the Speedsafe website?



Woof

 

[co-op]

I'm looking for the data that supports co-op's assertion that excessive speed is a factor in 33% of fatal accidents.


At the end of the day, it's an apples and oranges comparison, simply because the data provided by garf refers to excessive speed being a factor in 12.5% of "accidents" and co-op refers to "fatal accidents", so both could, in fact, be accurate.



Woof

And in any event, I have a number of other sources which find speed to be a factor in different percentages than 33% - some go to about a quarter etc.

My point was that the thread was getting hi-jacked by posters claiming speed was practically irrelevant - there is good evidence that it isn't. Then we got sidetracked by Garfield's inability to deal with the source provided or find the link provided.

I don't find the "fatal crashes" category the most compelling one anyway; as I've pointed out, you could reduce pedestrian fatalities to zero on any given road simply by terrorising pedestrians off that road (effectively what's happened in large parts of the country). But I wouldn't count that as any kind of victory for "safety".

Even if "only" 12.5% of fatal crashes are caused by speed you've still got a pretty major factor anyway.

So speed matters.


PS I'll go back and look at your things about the "12.5%" figure in the DfT report. - Garfield muddied the waters so totally I have pretty much dismissed what he said - he kept banging on about some 1995 report (which he never provided a source for ) and contrasting that with the DfT report. I was citing a 2000 report.


PPS I really wouldn't rely on SpeedSafe for much (except possibly links to more reputable sites - they are a classic bunch of single-issue axe-grinders)

 

[Jessiedog]

And in any event, I have a number of other sources which find speed to be a factor in different percentages than 33% - some go to about a quarter etc.

My point was that the thread was getting hi-jacked by posters claiming speed was practically irrelevant - there is good evidence that it isn't. Then we got sidetracked by Garfield's inability to deal with the source provided or find the link provided.

I don't find the "fatal crashes" category the most compelling one anyway; as I've pointed out, you could reduce pedestrian fatalities to zero on any given road simply by terrorising pedestrians off that road (effectively what's happened in large parts of the country). But I wouldn't count that as any kind of victory for "safety".

I don't believe that speed is irrelevant.

There are a range of contributing factors that rate higher than 12.5% incidence, however, pretty much all of them could be collapsed into the general "not paying proper attention" category. To me, this suggests that "not paying proper attention" is a contributory factor to almost all accidents, while "excessive speed" would be the second highest factor.

Even if "only" 12.5% of fatal crashes are caused by speed you've still got a pretty major factor anyway.

Ummmmm.

Not fatal accidents, just accidents - you're getting your apples and oranges jumbled again.

PS I'll go back and look at your things about the "12.5%" figure in the DfT report. - Garfield muddied the waters so totally I have pretty much dismissed what he said - he kept banging on about some 1995 report (which he never provided a source for ) and contrasting that with the DfT report. I was citing a 2000 report.

It is as stated in my first post on this thread.

PPS I really wouldn't rely on SpeedSafe for much (except possibly links to more reputable sites - they are a classic bunch of single-issue axe-grinders)

I'm interested in the data they derive from other (hopefully solid,) sources.





Woof

 

[chainsaw cat]

have youloked at the accident stats...

It's not the young drivers who are the problem but those who are 40 +, although the younger drivers are dying more when they do have accidents they aren't the biggest speeders or group who have accidents....

.... I was going to move on to old farts , just making the point that there's more to road safety - and indeed safety in any other non-natural activity - than the simple physics of speed/road/vehicle etc.

Do young drivers disproportionately die due to cheap cars, speed, lack of first aid skill, uninsured so everyone runs off rather than 999ing, or what? Or are teenagers just a bit flimsy and not robust enough to get away with a medium size crash?

 

[berniedicters]

.... I was going to move on to old farts , just making the point that there's more to road safety - and indeed safety in any other non-natural activity - than the simple physics of speed/road/vehicle etc.

Do young drivers disproportionately die due to cheap cars, speed, lack of first aid skill, uninsured so everyone runs off rather than 999ing, or what? Or are teenagers just a bit flimsy and not robust enough to get away with a medium size crash?

Or is it more about the relationship between their perception of risk and the actual level of risk?

 

[chainsaw cat]

I'd go for that TBH. Coupled with all the above + lack of skill/experience to extricate themselves from the fatal skid.

 

[co-op]

I think you're wrong here.

The report clearly states that:






Woof

Don't think I'm wrong.

But yes Hallelulah! In Appendix B2, there it is the TRL figure for "accidents" where speeding is a "contributory factor" - 12.5% - I presume this is what Garfield has been referring to. To be fair to me Garfield had directed me to Section 3.6 which is a list of utterly irrelevant data (and does make me wonder if he's actually read this thing or trying to cut 'n' paste from SpeedSafe or somesuch forum).

However - and with respect to you - it's not me getting apples and oranges confused. I have spoken about 'crash fatalities', or words to that effect since my first post.

Garfield has fumed wildly at this claim, but of course the fact that the TRL figures for 2001 (ie the ones in Appendix B2) give the figure as 12.5% doesn't necessarily contradict the "one third" figure I've cited. It could easily be that 12.5% of crashes have speeding as a contributory factor, but that that 12.5% results in one third of deaths. So this DfT report is still basically irrelevant.

I'm also a little baffled as to why he's so agitated by the report I cite being from 2000 (ie 8 years old) - when the figures he's trying to refute them with are from 2001, a whole year newer. Especially when they don't anyway...

 

[Jessiedog]

Don't think I'm wrong.

Yes, you are completely wrong.

You asserted that this figure represented the number of police forces that recorded things in this way.

It doesn't.

It is as I've posted.

However - and with respect to you - it's not me getting apples and oranges confused. I have spoken about 'crash fatalities', or words to that effect since my first post.

Yes you have spoken thus.

But you've also failed to recognise and - even after I pointed it out - have continued to mistakenly conflate "crashes" and "fatal crashes". "Apples" and "oranges".


I pointed out that "excessive speed" may have been a contributory factor in 12.5% of crashes and 30% of fatal crashes - the two are not mutually exclusive.

It could easily be that 12.5% of crashes have speeding as a contributory factor, but that that 12.5% results in one third of deaths.

By jove!

I think s/he's got it!




It would still be good to actually read the report you refer to though - we still haven't had sight of this data.

Could you please provide a link, or at least cut and paste the relevant section(s)?

It may well be the case that, since this report was published, the TRL/TfL have laterly admitted to the unreliability of the veracity of the data it was based upon.




Woof

 

[co-op]

Yes, you are completely wrong.

You asserted that this figure represented the number of police forces that recorded things in this way.

It doesn't.

It is as I've posted.

*sigh*

No Jessie you are wrong about this.

Read Section 3.6 again. That's where I was directed by Garfield for his 12.5% figure. In s.3.6 I found only one table of data - s. 3.6.5 to be precise. It's a list of factors that aren't used in the National System. And it is rated in order of frequency of use by different police forces - starting with 18 at the top (driver didn't stop at pedestrian crossing, down to just 6 forces using "heavy rain" at the bottom.

Just like I said - "that this figure represented the number of police forces that recorded things in this way".

True I never bothered read the Appendices wherein the great (red herring) of the 12.5% figure is to be found in all its glory.

But as we agree it's irrelevant, what's your point here?

Yes you have spoken thus.

But you've also failed to recognise and - even after I pointed it out - have continued to mistakenly conflate "crashes" and "fatal crashes". "Apples" and "oranges".


I pointed out that "excessive speed" may have been a contributory factor in 12.5% of crashes and 30% of fatal crashes - the two are not mutually exclusive.





By jove!

I think s/he's got it!

*sigh again* - so we agree. And that's a great victory for you? What's all this 'apples and oranges' horseshit? I have consistently spoken about fatalities or fatal crashes etc. 'Twas the great Garfield who got his knickers in a twist about the apparent contradiction between the two figures.

I'll admit I haven't been back and checked all my posts so - if you go over them with a fine toothed-comb you may have a tremendous victory here. Congratulations in advance if I omitted a word somewhere in a bulletin board post.

It would still be good to actually read the report you refer to though - we still haven't had sight of this data.

Could you please provide a link, or at least cut and paste the relevant section(s)?

If you could trouble yourself to read the thread you'll find one, helpfully provided by another poster who seemed to have no trouble finding one.

I can't be bothered to spoonfeed you this, and for the following reasons (already given, if you could trouble to read the thread, you'd know them already);

If you google the authors you'd find;

(a) the report exists

(b) it is routinely cited by credible govt and academic bodies

Unless you've got some reason to doubt it's impartiality, veracity or anything else you kind of have to accept it. Those are the rules of debate. Sorry bout that, I didn't write them.

It may well be the case that, since this report was published, the TRL/TfL have laterly admitted to the unreliability of the veracity of the data it was based upon.

This - I have to say - is a truly pathetic comment. "It may well be" that all sorts of things are the case. But just dreaming that the authors of a report that presents an analysis of evidence and draws conclusions you don't like have "laterly admitted to the unreliability of the veracity of the data it was based upon" - is what psychologists call 'magical thinking'. If you've got some evidence to suggest that that is the case - present it, don't just fantasise that it might exist.

Just to repeat - since you don't seem to have read the thread - I'm not that fussed about Taylor et al. I think all these reports have flaws. Perhaps you could look at some others?

Try this one next - it also argues that around 30% of fatalities are speed-related -

Farmer, C., Retting, R., and Lund, A. (1999) "Changes in motor vehicle occupant fatalities after repeal of the national maximum speed limit", Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31: 537-43