percentage of accidents caused by excessive speed - tell me the number

[steve.zissou]

OK, so we kept getting told speeding kills and thats why we need another couple of hundred speed cameras - but really its just a way for the politicians to generate more revenue (quite disgusting really, using a real sad issue like deaths on the road as an excuse to generate a buck )

SO any way, I was reading the RTA web site as below that goes from saying speeding is a factor in 40% of fatalities to simply saying speed deaths (blatant mistruth)
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...ras/index.html
So I ask myself what percentage of accidents where speed is the primary cause - obviously the primary cause is what we should be looking at.

well after a lot of searching i could not find this out, just a lot of Govt BS and hearsay. all the govt figures refer to accidents where speed is a contributing factor, although this doesn't necessary mean the person was exceeding the speed limit (could have been under the limit but still to fast for the situation. it also gets pretty fuzzy as speed could be a factor in every accident if you wanted it too (in the same way air temperature could be a factor in every accident.

and yes the faster you go the harder you hit, so we should all drive at 5km/h because at 50 kmph takes 15 meters to stop not 1 meter and that could save a child. it's like saying we should limit a politicians credit card to $500 because they might abuse it, but at least this way the abuse will be limited to $500.

So back to my question, can someone tell me what percentage of accidents have speeding as the primary cause because i think its going to be a bloody low number and I would like to know what they are doing about all the causes above speeding.

[Vincenzo]

Unless you know exactly where to look you may have difficulty getting exact numbers. Just off the top of my head I believe that here in the NT it is around 20% but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Here, the three big killers are Alcohol, no seat-belts and fatigue.

I can back this up from 15 years as a frontline Ambulance Officer / Paramedic.



Cheers Vincenz

[Revolver]

In all truth, the REAL figures cannot be attained.

You can put a forensic unit into action at a scene & they can determine what happened by what's left afterwards. Problems is, there can be contributing factors that "mask" the outcome the unit come out with. Everything from rain (light drizzle), other traffic, or skippy making an appearance at the wrong time.

In saying that, there are times when speed is a factor & it is blatantly obvious.

The only ones who know are the ones driving & at the scene at the time. And lets face it, it is sometimes very hard to get the truth out of them, or impossible in the case of fatality.

The other issue here is, what is excessive? 50 in a 40? 10kmh. Ok what about 110 in 100? Thats only 10% more. Or are we talking 120 in a 70? There would need to be a sliding scale reference for a Percentage of speed that is considered "excessive".

But if you ask a pollie or blue uniform. Any speed over the limit is excessive.

[jpblue1000]

All of them...
at the time the car hit something it was supposed to be stopped thus it was still traveling too fast.
Example; instead of stopping behind the car in front if you are still moving when you hit it thus your still going too fast as you should be stopped behind...

JP

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Revolver 45

Everything from rain (light drizzle), other traffic, or skippy making an appearance at the wrong time.

one could argue that if you are driving to the conditions then you should adjust your speed accordingly, for example 80 k's in a flash flood like rainstorm could be considered 'speeding'. "Light drizzle" can make a long term dry road slippery. Known kangaroo haunts need to be treated with real care, so 'speeding' though these areas at sunrise or sunset could be considered doing more than 60km/h

'Speeding' in road safety terms doesn't always mean exceeding the posted speed limit.

When Police refer to speeding I am pretty confident that they are referring to the prevailing conditions as well as the posted speed limit

Just saying!!!

[BHDOGS]

No seatbelts? There really is no help for stupidity is there

[csv8]

QPol claims 25% of fatals are caused by speed..what QPol spend on speed detection is out of proportion to all the other causes of traffic accidents..Because this is the easiest one to raise revenue ...

[BHDOGS]

No it's because it's the easiest one to target if they could
Invent drink driving cameras you'd have them by now people really have issues with speed cameras when really only a small proportion of drivers on this forum actually get caught speeding

[Kable72]

There is a difference between speed being a factor and speed being the killer.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by steve.zissou

OK, so we kept getting told speeding kills and thats why we need another couple of hundred speed cameras - but really its just a way for the politicians to generate more revenue (quite disgusting really, using a real sad issue like deaths on the road as an excuse to generate a buck )

SO any way, I was reading the RTA web site as below that goes from saying speeding is a factor in 40% of fatalities to simply saying speed deaths (blatant mistruth)
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...ras/index.html
So I ask myself what percentage of accidents where speed is the primary cause - obviously the primary cause is what we should be looking at.

well after a lot of searching i could not find this out, just a lot of Govt BS and hearsay. all the govt figures refer to accidents where speed is a contributing factor, although this doesn't necessary mean the person was exceeding the speed limit (could have been under the limit but still to fast for the situation. it also gets pretty fuzzy as speed could be a factor in every accident if you wanted it too (in the same way air temperature could be a factor in every accident.

and yes the faster you go the harder you hit, so we should all drive at 5km/h because at 50 kmph takes 15 meters to stop not 1 meter and that could save a child. it's like saying we should limit a politicians credit card to $500 because they might abuse it, but at least this way the abuse will be limited to $500.

So back to my question, can someone tell me what percentage of accidents have speeding as the primary cause because i think its going to be a bloody low number and I would like to know what they are doing about all the causes above speeding.

ALL of them obviously.

And just so you know, there are no ethnic groups, genders, socio-economic groups, vehicle types or roadworthyness, intelligence or education levels, driving abilities, health stataes, road condtions or environmental situations involved in the cause of any vehicle incident whatsoever.

[poppa smurf]

speed is ALWAYS a factor.....whether it is the cause or not varies from MVA to MVA

[xisled]

If speed cameras do stop one person from being killed on the road and slowing them down, then IMO it is worth every cent.

I am so sick of people saying speed cameras are just there for revenue. But if you look at it, how much is a life worth. Seems to me a lot of people on this forum think a life is worth nothing or very minimal amount, because they just see speed cameras as money makers.

Yes I understand people may not be killed because they speed and I can see millions are made from camera's every year.

Another question people do not ask, and there will not be any stats for. Is how many people have been saved because they thought if they speed they would get fined.

Anything to stop people speeding is a good thing.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by xisled

If speed cameras do stop one person from being killed on the road and slowing them down, then IMO it is worth every cent.

Simple question. How does a speed camera slow someone down???

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by xisled

If speed cameras do stop one person from being killed on the road and slowing them down, then IMO it is worth every cent.

I am so sick of people saying speed cameras are just there for revenue. But if you look at it, how much is a life worth. Seems to me a lot of people on this forum think a life is worth nothing or very minimal amount, because they just see speed cameras as money makers.

Yes I understand people may not be killed because they speed and I can see millions are made from camera's every year.

Another question people do not ask, and there will not be any stats for. Is how many people have been saved because they thought if they speed they would get fined.

Anything to stop people speeding is a good thing.

I agree with a lot of this. Unfortunately, proactive policing is hated by the majority, because its impossible to relate stats to it.
Its easier to say "QPS conducted 22000 RBT's and charged 200 with Drink Driving" then to say "QPS conducted 22000 RBT's, and charged noone due to there proactive efforts in reducing drink driving".
Reactive policing will always receive the praise of the public, due to there being stats that everyone can go "oh wow, look at that".

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by xisled

If speed cameras do stop one person from being killed on the road and slowing them down, then IMO it is worth every cent.

I am so sick of people saying speed cameras are just there for revenue. But if you look at it, how much is a life worth. Seems to me a lot of people on this forum think a life is worth nothing or very minimal amount, because they just see speed cameras as money makers.

Yes I understand people may not be killed because they speed and I can see millions are made from camera's every year.

Another question people do not ask, and there will not be any stats for. Is how many people have been saved because they thought if they speed they would get fined.

Anything to stop people speeding is a good thing.

You're not looking at the big picture.

Its the singular focus on speed that frustrates so many people. The camera's may have saved lives, sure. But other factors need to be targeted if the road toll is going to be reduced further.

Driver education would be the main one. But instead, anything that costs money to implement is ignored, while the speed cameras are rolled out all over the country to little effect. Why isn't even a fraction of the money they generate put back into road safety initiatives?

So if you wish to bang on about how much a life is worth, perhaps you should question why more isn't being done by our governments to save them?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by xisled

I am so sick of people saying speed cameras are just there for revenue.

To me it depends on the state you are in- I think cameras work well in NSW because there are signs alerting motorists to the camera and they slow down as a result- making the accident prone areas (that the cameras are located in) much safer.

Other states however, with no speed camera warning signage & unmarked camera vans- that's flat out revenue raising. If people don't know there's a camera there, they won't slow down.

[GCRXR6]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

To me it depends on the state you are in- I think cameras work well in NSW because there are signs alerting motorists to the camera and they slow down as a result- making the accident prone areas (that the cameras are located in) much safer.

Other states however, with no speed camera warning signage & unmarked camera vans- that's flat out revenue raising. If people don't know there's a camera there, they won't slow down.

It doesn't matter what state you are in, the camera is only a revenue raiser if you contribute to the funds.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by xisled

If speed cameras do stop one person from being killed on the road and slowing them down, then IMO it is worth every cent.

I am so sick of people saying speed cameras are just there for revenue. But if you look at it, how much is a life worth. Seems to me a lot of people on this forum think a life is worth nothing or very minimal amount, because they just see speed cameras as money makers.

Yes I understand people may not be killed because they speed and I can see millions are made from camera's every year.

Another question people do not ask, and there will not be any stats for. Is how many people have been saved because they thought if they speed they would get fined.

Anything to stop people speeding is a good thing.

I reckon the amount of lives speed cameras have saved, is far outweighed by the amount of lives lost by people having to focus 90% of their attention of watching the speedo, instead of what is going on around them.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

I reckon the amount of lives speed cameras have saved, is far outweighed by the amount of lives lost by people having to focus 90% of their attention of watching the speedo, instead of what is going on around them.

Well to be honest, if you cant sit on 58 in a 60 zone, 78 in an 80 zone, or 108 in a 110 zone without staring at your speedo, then perhaps there is an underlying issue.

Perhaps if obeying a set speed limit is such an issue for a % of the population maybe, just maybe, driving isn't for them.

I would go out on a limb and say that speeding is habitual and that an examination of the victims of speed cameras would show they are rarely first time offenders.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Well to be honest, if you cant sit on 58 in a 60 zone, 78 in an 80 zone, or 108 in a 110 zone without staring at your speedo, then perhaps there is an underlying issue.

If the world is flat, no cars ever slow down, bends didn't exist and everyone just drives at the exact same speed all day then maybe. But in real life it is quite hard to keep your speedo bang on for extended periods of time under normal road and traffic conditions.

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Simple question. How does a speed camera slow someone down???

Speeding drivers see the camera, slow down to 10 below the limit. Then once they clear the camera they speed back up again. I see it all day every day.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by xisled

If speed cameras do stop one person from being killed on the road and slowing them down, then IMO it is worth every cent.

I am so sick of people saying speed cameras are just there for revenue. But if you look at it, how much is a life worth. Seems to me a lot of people on this forum think a life is worth nothing or very minimal amount, because they just see speed cameras as money makers.

Yes I understand people may not be killed because they speed and I can see millions are made from camera's every year.

Another question people do not ask, and there will not be any stats for. Is how many people have been saved because they thought if they speed they would get fined.

Anything to stop people speeding is a good thing.

That is bang on the money and couldn't be put any better.

The fact is that yes, speed cameras do raise enormous revenues for the government, but not without a crime being committed.

As was referred to, without speed cameras there would be many more people doing as they pleased and therefore quite likely a higher incident rate.

Its easy to pass them off as revenue raisers and quote insignificant statistics to support the agenda, but the truth is, without them the roads would be a dangerous place.

Its the same with booze buses, sure they don't catch everyone, and yes, there are still accidents involving grog, but without the threat of running into one, many more people would just drive home intoxicated which would inturn raise the statistics.

If you don't want to contribute to the governments coffers, obey the guidelines as set down by the governing body, its not hard and yes, on occasion they are blatantly wrong, but until which time as they choose to change it, its law.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by xisled

If speed cameras do stop one person from being killed on the road and slowing them down, then IMO it is worth every cent.

I am so sick of people saying speed cameras are just there for revenue. But if you look at it, how much is a life worth. Seems to me a lot of people on this forum think a life is worth nothing or very minimal amount, because they just see speed cameras as money makers.

Yes I understand people may not be killed because they speed and I can see millions are made from camera's every year.

Another question people do not ask, and there will not be any stats for. Is how many people have been saved because they thought if they speed they would get fined.

Anything to stop people speeding is a good thing.

We could stop many more deaths by stopping everyone driving . Any life saved would be worth it in your reasoning.

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by xisled

If speed cameras do stop one person from being killed on the road and slowing them down, then IMO it is worth every cent.

So a sign up the highway with "slow down" or "Speed is xxx",with possibly a speed camera further down the track for those who cant concentrate on the surroundings wouldn't curb the death toll
More a warning than the big stick approach ....
The whole its a "money spinner" got proved over easter time
Cops out on the beat , booking for 1 K over ,yet the death toll didn't change from last year by much,yet the millions extra they made compared to last years went towards what for safer roads,better drivers ect,

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

The whole its a "money spinner" got proved over easter time
Cops out on the beat , booking for 1 K over ,yet the death toll didn't change from last year by much,yet the millions extra they made compared to last years went towards what for safer roads,better drivers ect,

Are you sure they raised millions more, imagine if the revenue raised over easter dropped due to drivers obeying the limit instead of pushing it...

[joolz]

Originally Posted by xisled

If speed cameras do stop one person from being killed on the road and slowing them down, then IMO it is worth every cent.

So the speed camera today in S.E Melbourne on Wanda st (50k zone) coming off Wellington rd (80k zone) was all about safety where there have been no fatalities nor accidents in over 10 years is there just for safety?? Cmon are you sure you dont work for the Gov..

[Yellow_Festiva]

Define "speed"??? While you are doing that think about how that differs to "speeding".

You will never know, but it is really a play on words, and definitions. If you were doing 60 in a 60 zone and hit a kid running out into the street they will probably say speed was a factor as if you were doing less you may have stopped in time.

Same with accidents in the wet I assume. Do the limit, hit a patch of oil and have an accident. Speed would have been a factor, of course if you were sitting idle on that oil patch you would not have had an accident, therefore speed was a factor.......

[Outbackjack]

Less than 5% here in the NT. Alcohol, no seat belts, no license, un-road worthy cars are the biggest killers here. And almost all the speeding accidents are in built up area's. Another "unique" stat is the number of death's in custody....... These are indiginies that kill themselves evading police.

[The Monty]

I know how the "facts" are portrayed by media and so forth, but I think the real fact remains, that the faster you are going when you hit something, the worse off you are going to be in what would be a considerably high amount of circumstances. When they say that speeding is a factor in a lot of deaths, has a certain amount of truth to it.
Eg: Car travelling at 110km/h has to swerve to miss the car in front as there isnt enough room to stop due to speed, and hits a tree. If he was going at 100km/h, he might not have had to swerve, or may have stopped short of the tree. In this instance, speed is a contributing factor to the death. Of course, this is an extremely generalised thesis.
I dont think any reasonable person here thinks that speeding isnt a contributing factor in a lot of deaths. However to the extent at which the media portays, maybe not so.
And as Flappist has raised, maybe slightly sarcastically, there are also a lot of other contributing factors which dont get analysed by Govco.
I will say though, whatever my thoughts are on speed cameras (which is common with a lot of AFFers) I cant see how more of them can have a negative impact. They are there, there are signs, just slow down when you go past them.
People saying that they are just revenue raisers, I agree. WE need revenue to fund the police. Govco seems to think that less money, fewer incentives and more recruits is the answer to policing in QLD. Qpol needs more money to help deal with the kinds of people that us AFFers refuse to deal with.

Just my 2c, however off track it may be.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Eg: Car travelling at 110km/h has to swerve to miss the car in front as there isnt enough room to stop due to speed, and hits a tree. If he was going at 100km/h, he might not have had to swerve, or may have stopped short of the tree. In this instance, speed is a contributing factor to the death. Of course, this is an extremely generalised thesis. .

If the car was travelling at 120 he also may not of had to swerve....

[poppa smurf]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

If the car was travelling at 120 he also may not of had to swerve....

exactly.....he would have been that much further down the track and a lot of prangs are precisely this .......a culmination of many factors

only one of which is speed......having said that please drive to the conditions