Road crash fatatilty/injury statistics

[jimmyxr6t04]

The best thing about statistics is that they are so open to interpretation. More often then not, speed is a 'factor'... Of course speed is a bloody factor, if the car was doing zero km/h, it wouldn't have crashed

So, is 103km/h 3% more dangerous then driving at 100km/h... What if, one driver is doing 95km/h, but the other bloke is doing 105km/h, and they crash and one person dies? Is the blame on speed? One bloke was speeding, the other was going slow... Speed was a factor though... Put a camera in, it'll stop people from crashing.

Seriously, lets get real here people... Far too many people are BRAIN WASHED, that speeding kills. Of course it kills if you drive at excessive speeds. What is excessive? Some here would have you believe that 3km/h over the limit is speeding Lock them up, throw away the key... They're putting us all at danger. On the other hand, more often then not it's perfectly safe to sit on 130km/h in a 110 zone... But obviously too many people think it's putting peoples lives at risk...

Speed cameras are like the carbon tax proposal. It makes the politicians feel warm and fuzzy, but in the grand scheme of things it does sweet f all except give the government more money, and supress the Australian people even more..

What a bloody joke of a society we are becoming...

[SEZ213]

Oh dear lord, sudzy, just tell them where you're from and the children can return to play...I'm not really sure of it's relevance to this thread, but hey, you may as well humour them, for I fear they won't let it go

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by jimmyxr6t04

The best thing about statistics is that they are so open to interpretation. More often then not, speed is a 'factor'... Of course speed is a bloody factor, if the car was doing zero km/h, it wouldn't have crashed

So, is 103km/h 3% more dangerous then driving at 100km/h... What if, one driver is doing 95km/h, but the other bloke is doing 105km/h, and they crash and one person dies? Is the blame on speed? One bloke was speeding, the other was going slow... Speed was a factor though... Put a camera in, it'll stop people from crashing.

Seriously, lets get real here people... Far too many people are BRAIN WASHED, that speeding kills. Of course it kills if you drive at excessive speeds. What is excessive? Some here would have you believe that 3km/h over the limit is speeding Lock them up, throw away the key... They're putting us all at danger. On the other hand, more often then not it's perfectly safe to sit on 130km/h in a 110 zone... But obviously too many people think it's putting peoples lives at risk...

Speed cameras are like the carbon tax proposal. It makes the politicians feel warm and fuzzy, but in the grand scheme of things it does sweet f all except give the government more money, and supress the Australian people even more..

What a bloody joke of a society we are becoming...

100% true. Statistics are open to interpretation. unfortunately every year on these roads, people die, be it caused by speed, drugs, alcohol, inexperience, over confidence or just plain complacency. FACT. as a result, we are forced to focus on the lowest common denominator...those that aren't fantastic drivers.

[delete94]

Originally Posted by prydey

its extremely easy to find yourself doing 63 in a 60, just by going down a slight hill or concentrating on driving and looking out the big clear screen in front of you and just keeping up with traffic.

it is impossible for a speed camera to save lives. if i went through a speed trap and then caused an accident up the road resulting in a fatality, could i sue the government??

you will never convince me that 60 is safe and 63 is dangerous.

sezzy - i don't think anyone is condoning speeding or advocating that you drive above the limit. the fact is, that 100% of people on the road, will at some point, drive beyond a speed limit somewhere. that makes everyone hypocrits when they say 'don't speed, don't get caught'!

You hit the nail on the head there. Couldn't agree more. Glad to see someone else thinks the "don't speed and you won't get caught" brigade are a bunch of hypocrits. Anyone who drives a vehicle and claims to have never exceeded the speed limit, even unintentionally, is plainly and simply a liar as far as I'm concerned. If only there was a statistic which showed how many of the "don't speed and you won't get caught" gang have actually been pinged by a camera!

To me, the real problem with trying to get the government to look at other ways to reduce the road toll is that speed, or rather, revenue from speeding fines, is like a narcotic, and the government is hooked. And the more the government insists that additional speed cameras are the answer, the more it seems to simply prove they are in denial. But using speed as some kind of magic bullet is easy, as it’s easily measurable, easy to manipulate and gives the government the ability to quote a lot of statistics.

I certainly don’t have all the answers (probably none of the answers actually), particularly for the current generation of drivers, some of whom seem to have a lack of respect for the rules of the road, or even worse, a lack of knowledge of those rules. I think what’s required is a more pro-active, long term approach that will change the attitude of new drivers. One thing I can think of is to implement comprehensive driver education studies into the school curriculum, starting from primary school and continuing all the way through high school. There’s little chance of this happening though, as first of all, it won’t be as easy as just sticking a camera on the verge, then there's no revenue in it for them (in fact it would cost money to implement), but more so, this would be a long term initiative and a government wouldn’t have immediate bragging rights to claim they have had a real impact on reducing the road toll.

[jpd80]

Around the country in 2006-07 there were over 32,000 serious crashes where people were hospitalised,
those thinking that speed cameras are merely to fill the government coffers should think again regarding
third party insurance and the ensuring compensation cases where money is awarded to people injured
in vehicle crashes. While the money may seem to come from some other source, we are all adult
enough to know that all of those road victims need money spent on them, whether it be a short stay
in hospital or some large payout because they can no longer lead a normal life or hold down their
previous job. Somebody has to pay for all this and from what I see, it's the mugs that don't have crashes....

[SEZ213]

Delete94, I don't mean any disrespect, but regarding those that don't respect the rules of the road...doesn't exceeding the speed limit put most people into that category, intentionally or not?

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Around the country in 2006-07 there were over 32,000 serious crashes where people were hospitalised,
those thinking that speed cameras are merely to fill the government coffers should think again regarding
third party insurance and the ensuring compensation cases where money is awarded to people injured
in vehicle crashes. While the money may seem to come from some other source, we are all adult
enough to know that all of those road victims need money spent on them, whether it be a short stay
in hospital or some large payout because they can no longer lead a normal life or hold down their
previous job. Somebody has to pay for all this and from what I see, it's the mugs that don't have crashes....

So you saying speed camera fund people who were in serious crashes???

Maybe if the government spend money ACTUALLY making roads safer there would be a lot less then 32,000 crashes per year.

But making roads safer is a hard job. It takes up lots of time and money.
Governments don't like spending money unless it is going to make them money back, so they just put a band aid(speed cameras) on it and think that fixes the problems. And make a few billion dollars in the process.


They make money and convince some people the roads are safer. Win Win.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by prydey

sezzy - i don't think anyone is condoning speeding or advocating that you drive above the limit. the fact is, that 100% of people on the road, will at some point, drive beyond a speed limit somewhere. that makes everyone hypocrits when they say 'don't speed, don't get caught'!

I agree with most of what you said on your post but can not agree with this last bit.

We often have people start threads on here that consist of "I was sitting on 10 over the limit and got flashed, can I get out of it?" It is on those posts that many have said "if you do not speed you will not get caught" and I have been one of them on more than the odd occasion. Does that mean I am perfect and never nudge over the limit? Of course it doesn't, it just means I can face a simple fact that if you are not speeding you can not be caught, not rocket science. So often we have people whining on here that they have been busted and how crook the world is when in actual fact the biggest problem is their lack of ability to take responsibility for their actions and take it on the chin.

Have I made the "don't speed and you won't get caught" comment, yes I have. I have also had the odd occasion when I have received a happy snap from the boys in blue. My last was about 6 months ago when one of the covert units got me in a moment of inattention, my fault. The big point is, I have never complained about it, in fact this is the first time I have mentioned it here because there has been no need to. It was my wrong doing and I accept responsibility for my actions.

Does that make me a bad driver? No, it makes me human, there has not been a perfect human being since the last one died about 2000 years ago. Everyone here, I don't care who you are, has bad driving habits and is prone to the odd potentially unsafe action on the road, that is the way we humans are.

Does that opinion make me a hypocrite, absolutely not and I know many here have the same opinion. Yes I will concede that some that have made the comment in question may have hypocritical opinions but definitely not all.

Originally Posted by delete94

You hit the nail on the head there. Couldn't agree more. Glad to see someone else thinks the "don't speed and you won't get caught" brigade are a bunch of hypocrits. Anyone who drives a vehicle and claims to have never exceeded the speed limit, even unintentionally, is plainly and simply a liar as far as I'm concerned. If only there was a statistic which showed how many of the "don't speed and you won't get caught" gang have actually been pinged by a camera!

Sounds like we need a chill pill on isle 13.

[geckoGT]

Back on topic.

We all pretty much accept that we have come a long way in reducing the road toll over the last 30-40 years but the most common question is what has been effective in bringing that result?

This is probably the hardest question of all to answer. Unfortunately there have been a lot of changes in many different areas with regard to crash avoidance and crash survival. All these changes have occurred concurrently and therefore it is virtually impossible to credit any single change with any quantifiable effect on the road toll.

The simple fact is it is a combination of the efforts from the road users, government bodies, manufacturers and emergency services that have bought about this change for the better.

In my mind, the positive is we are highly unlikely to go backwards in road safety and the road toll stats should continue to reduce in the future. I just hope that the changes to bring us that result are more palatable to the general road user than some have been previously.

[delete94]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Sounds like we need a chill pill on isle 13.

No chill pill required, just stating my opinion, as you have yours.

This subject should get people passionate, as road sfaety in general has a long way to go.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by delete94

This subject should get people passionate, as road sfaety in general has a long way to go.

I agree, we do have a long way to go but the good news is we have come a long way already.

I think we are realistically more than half way to where we can expect to get to.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Ben73

So you saying speed camera fund people who were in serious crashes???

I don't know whether that is the case or not, all I'm saying is that someone has to pay for that
whether it be through infringement fines or increased compulsory third party insurance costs.
In the end, we're the mugs that pay for sub standard roads, increased speeding fines
and higher insurance premiums, the mugs that are mostly law abiding that don't make claims.

[SEZ213]

Gecko, I think I love you...you put my jibbered woman speak into logical man sense. :-)

[prydey]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I agree with most of what you said on your post but can not agree with this last bit.

We often have people start threads on here that consist of "I was sitting on 10 over the limit and got flashed, can I get out of it?" It is on those posts that many have said "if you do not speed you will not get caught" and I have been one of them on more than the odd occasion. Does that mean I am perfect and never nudge over the limit? Of course it doesn't, it just means I can face a simple fact that if you are not speeding you can not be caught, not rocket science. So often we have people whining on here that they have been busted and how crook the world is when in actual fact the biggest problem is their lack of ability to take responsibility for their actions and take it on the chin.

Have I made the "don't speed and you won't get caught" comment, yes I have. I have also had the odd occasion when I have received a happy snap from the boys in blue. My last was about 6 months ago when one of the covert units got me in a moment of inattention, my fault. The big point is, I have never complained about it, in fact this is the first time I have mentioned it here because there has been no need to. It was my wrong doing and I accept responsibility for my actions.

Does that make me a bad driver? No, it makes me human, there has not been a perfect human being since the last one died about 2000 years ago. Everyone here, I don't care who you are, has bad driving habits and is prone to the odd potentially unsafe action on the road, that is the way we humans are.

Does that opinion make me a hypocrite, absolutely not and I know many here have the same opinion. Yes I will concede that some that have made the comment in question may have hypocritical opinions but definitely not all.

you have taken my comments different to how i meant them, which is easy to do on an internet forum

there are many people who make these types of comments and come across all high and mighty as though they don't speed.... ever, so therefore they wag their finger at the anti speed camera crowd.

like you, i have little sympathy for those who intentionally speed, and even less for those who whinge about it afterward, but the fact is, speed camera's don't discriminate, and 100% of drivers on the road will drive in excess of the limit at some point in their life. its a fact. speed cameras are set with a much lower tolerance than before and nabbing many drivers who don't drive along looking at their speedo but rather what is happening around them.

what annoys me the most is the fact that these minor indescretions would have very little impact on the raod toll if they weren't there. for arguments sake, lets say no one sped, at all, anywhere. speed camera's were made redundant. would crashes not happen? i think we all know the answer. doing 63 in a 60 or 105 in a 100 is not the reason the car veered off the road.

i don't condone speeding. i haven't been done speeding in over 10yrs and i use cruise every time i drive so i don't have to worry about things, but i still speed. like you say, we are all human, and i agree 100% when you say the last perfect human dying around 2000 years ago.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

speed camera's don't discriminate, and 100% of drivers on the road will drive in excess of the limit at some point in their life.

yes, very true, but the chances of just occasionally exceeding the limit and driving past a speed camera at the same time are incredibly small, probabiity tells us that people that get nabbed must be exceeding the limit on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by prydey

what annoys me the most is the fact that these minor indescretions would have very little impact on the raod toll if they weren't there. for arguments sake, lets say no one sped, at all, anywhere. speed camera's were made redundant. would crashes not happen? i think we all know the answer. doing 63 in a 60 or 105 in a 100 is not the reason the car veered off the road. .

I think we have been here before, the belief that just a little bit over has no effect? Taken as a whole, vehicle collisions and the extent of them will increase when limits are raised, or more specifically when limits are lowered in this country the effect will diminish. Tolerances being reduced in vic, did have an effect on the average speed people travel at and that has been seen in the overall reduction of collisons and reduction of severity of collisions and injuries sustained.

Unfortunately most accidents, injuries that occur out there every day aren't due to people driving recklessly at 30km/h or more over the limit leaving the road, they are due to people that make non deliberate mistakes while going about their driving. In the short term and even in the long term there isnt a whole lot that will stop people from being human, however, we can limit the damage by making sure their speed doesnt add to the problem.

Might as well have a person with a red flag walking in front of the car? you could take it to those extremes, and society itself has to judge what is a reasonable number of people we have to kill on the roads so we can travel faster. Personally, i think that adhering to the present limits is a good compromise with reducing the injuries sustained on the roads.

The fact that we have 1000s of people per day still exceeding the limits and too many killed and injured on our roads, points to that we are no where near achieving that compromise.

[Trevor 57]

For Victoria, 1034 killed in 1973, under 300 in 2010, you do the maths.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

For Victoria, 1034 killed in 1973, under 300 in 2010, you do the maths.

What percentage of the total number 1973 accidents were fatal compared to the percentage of 2010?

Do you think that car design may increase the survival chances in any accident?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

yes, very true, but the chances of just occasionally exceeding the limit and driving past a speed camera at the same time are incredibly small, probabiity tells us that people that get nabbed must be exceeding the limit on a regular basis.

rubbish!! all assumptions on your part to fit your arguement!!

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think we have been here before, the belief that just a little bit over has no effect? Taken as a whole, vehicle collisions and the extent of them will increase when limits are raised, or more specifically when limits are lowered in this country the effect will diminish. Tolerances being reduced in vic, did have an effect on the average speed people travel at and that has been seen in the overall reduction of collisons and reduction of severity of collisions and injuries sustained.

Unfortunately most accidents, injuries that occur out there every day aren't due to people driving recklessly at 30km/h or more over the limit leaving the road, they are due to people that make non deliberate mistakes while going about their driving. In the short term and even in the long term there isnt a whole lot that will stop people from being human, however, we can limit the damage by making sure their speed doesnt add to the problem.

Might as well have a person with a red flag walking in front of the car? you could take it to those extremes, and society itself has to judge what is a reasonable number of people we have to kill on the roads so we can travel faster. Personally, i think that adhering to the present limits is a good compromise with reducing the injuries sustained on the roads.

The fact that we have 1000s of people per day still exceeding the limits and too many killed and injured on our roads, points to that we are no where near achieving that compromise.

do you actually believe the drivel you type?? you obviously believe the tripe the govt push down your neck. you believe that if nobody broke the speed limit, there would be less crashes?? seriously, whatever credibility you may have had just took a dive.

if a driver falls asleep whilst doing 90 in a 100 and veers off the road hitting a tree killing himself, it will be reported and recorded that speed was a factor.

if grandma misjudges the traffic and turns in front of oncoming cars and causes a fatality, speed will be recorded as being a factor, even though all cars were driving below the limit.

stop treating everyone like they are idiots. nsw has just announced an increase in cameras by a few thousand units. these will really rack up the statistics now. it won't stop any accidents though.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

yes, very true, but the chances of just occasionally exceeding the limit and driving past a speed camera at the same time are incredibly small, probabiity tells us that people that get nabbed must be exceeding the limit on a regular basis.

Seems you don't live in a city area where speed traps are everywhere, normally on a decent down hill area like I do, either that or you don't clock up 50-75'000 km a year. Not that we will ever know as you never disclose anything about yourself.

By the way, the vast majority of crashes occur at below posted speed limits. Sure that is not the speed deaths occur but in pure crash numbers, the vast majority are below the speed limit.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

. you believe that if nobody broke the speed limit, there would be less crashes??.

Hmm, the strawman defence.

Originally Posted by prydey

if a driver falls asleep whilst doing 90 in a 100 and veers off the road hitting a tree killing himself, it will be reported and recorded that speed was a factor

Really, you have documented evidence on this?, your claim is imbecilic.
You have forgotten about the fatigue campaign run by the TAC, not too recently, just in case you were under a rock or have forgotten: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1670yiKz2E

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Seems you don't live in a city area where speed traps are everywhere, normally on a decent down hill area like I do, either that or you don't clock up 50-75'000 km a year..

What's your point, do you reckon that if just random violations of the speed limit will get your photo taken.

Lets say you drove 100mins a day(you probably do more), perhaps you went over the limit accidentally for a very generous total of 30 secs of the day, thats 0.5% of the time over the limit. (Most cars come with speed alert buzzers now, dont people use them, really whats the excuse?)
Number of metres of road patrolled by cameras/total suburban network(you tell me), multiply that by 0.5% and , when you are done, compare that to the probability of winning tattslotto.

[MO]

Sudszy,grow up your becoming boring.

[jpd80]

While I would never agree with 63 in a 60 zone being a fine and points violation,
there is a lot more anecdotal evidence that people being caught buy those cameras are
actually doing much faster speeds like 15-20 kph over.

It's a bit like the drunk drivers being pulled out of wrecks, those guys aren't .05, a lot of them are seriously tanked.

^^^ Gecko, I think you confirmed this second point a while ago..

Maybe it's those dangerous people who refuse to change that need to be weeded out,
those people that exceed the speed limits by a substantial amount and do put others at risk.

I would suggest that people doing less than 10kph over the limit should be shown more leniency,
maybe no points and smaller nudge fine like $50 but that would force the government to be more open
about the true agenda behind speed cameras.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

What's your point, do you reckon that if just random violations of the speed limit will get your photo taken.

Lets say you drove 100mins a day(you probably do more), perhaps you went over the limit accidentally for a very generous total of 30 secs of the day, thats 0.5% of the time over the limit. (Most cars come with speed alert buzzers now, dont people use them, really whats the excuse?)
Number of metres of road patrolled by cameras/total suburban network(you tell me), multiply that by 0.5% and , when you are done, compare that to the probability of winning tattslotto.

Nice calculation, except the duration of driving per day is more like 300 mins a day. That and one flash in 10 years, that is 3642 days, 1,092,600 mins of driving and about 700,000 kms. Damn, the odds of one slip suddenly got much better than the chances of a lotto win.

[SpoolMan]

Important thread topic, lets keep the focus on the topic and leave the commentary out of the thread.
Time for more quality posts in this thread.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by jpd80

While I would never agree with 63 in a 60 zone being a fine and points violation,
there is a lot more anecdotal evidence that people being caught buy those cameras are
actually doing much faster speeds like 15-20 kph over.

It's a bit like the drunk drivers being pulled out of wrecks, those guys aren't .05, a lot of them are seriously tanked.

^^^ Gecko, I think you confirmed this second point a while ago..

Maybe it's those dangerous people who refuse to change that need to be weeded out,
those people that exceed the speed limits by a substantial amount and do put others at risk.

I would suggest that people doing less than 10kph over the limit should be shown more leniency,
maybe no points and smaller nudge fine like $50 but that would force the government to be more open
about the true agenda behind speed cameras.

Nicely put.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by flappist

What percentage of the total number 1973 accidents were fatal compared to the percentage of 2010?

Do you think that car design may increase the survival chances in any accident?

I dont think anyone is claiming that just one thing is responsible for lowering the road toll, rather we just have one very vocal group here that the lowering the speed that vehicles travel at isnt one of them.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

For Victoria, 1034 killed in 1973, under 300 in 2010, you do the maths.

fatalities per 100k of population is even more significant, down from 30 to 5.4 per 100k.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I dont think anyone is claiming that just one thing is responsible for lowering the road toll, rather we just have one very vocal group here that the lowering the speed that vehicles travel at isnt one of them.

no one is saying that at all in this thread. we are suggesting that a small amount over the limit (maybe 5-10kph) is not necessarily more dangerous, than doing the speed limit. you are suggesting that the same amount is more dangerous - you are in the very exclusive, very vocal group; not the rest of us

as i suggested earlier and gecko agreed, braking distances do not come into it if a driver is so unaware, they do not see the danger and therefore do not brake at all or brake later than the vehicle doing >10kph over the speed limit. speed is the secondary problem - the impact is the primary problem. i would much rather the world be full of alert drivers doing 10kph over the posted speed limit than a world that is full of brain dead, incompetant morons that are doing the speed limit or less. it seems you side with the morons, which is a very sad thought

[delete94]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Delete94, I don't mean any disrespect, but regarding those that don't respect the rules of the road...doesn't exceeding the speed limit put most people into that category, intentionally or not?

No disrespect taken Sudszy. To answer your question though, yes, speeding does put most people into the category of breaking the road rules. However, I’m not quite sure what your point is, as I don’t believe I said that speeding is not breaking the road rules.

My point is simple, and I’m not condoning speeding, if that’s what you were thinking, however, speed is only one of the many attitudinal problems you see displayed on the roads every day. However, there is a disproportional response by authorities to this one aspect.

I assume you actually get out on the roads, I know I do, it’s part of my job. Just a quick list of some of the things I’ve seen in the last week: drivers ignoring the most basic road rule, ie. keeping left, some of those same drivers crossing two or three lanes of traffic because they suddenly realise they’re at their exit on the freeway, drivers edging out of their driveways onto main roads as they think if they get out far enough, someone will have to stop to let them out, drivers not indicating in roundabouts, drivers pulling out from side streets when the way is not really clear, drivers on single lane roads passing on the approach to the crest of a hill and again, drivers on single lane roads passing on double lines.

These are not “non-deliberate mistakes” as you mention, but are quite the opposite. And some of these actions are extremely dangerous, even if you are travelling at the posted speed limit. These are the sorts of things I’m talking about when I say many drivers seem to have a lack of respect for the rules of the road, or even worse, a lack of knowledge of those rules or no idea of the consequences of their actions. And I certainly don’t believe that speed enforcement changes the attitudes of drivers who display this type of behaviour.

If you’re serious about road safety, you can’t look at speed in isolation, it’s ludicrous. One of the outcomes with such a top heavy emphasis on speed is that so-so drivers have the mistaken belief that they are actually good drivers simply because they don’t speed. The fact that they may display some of the attitudes above is lost on them.

A system needs to be in place that teaches drivers, especially new ones, the dangers of being on the road and the possible consequences of their actions, as well as respect for other road users and the road rules. And yes, that includes speeding, but not in isolation.

Lets be honest though Sudszy, you do sound like you’re pro speed enforcement as the overarching fix it, and that’s fine. Me on the other hand, I’m not a believer in speed cameras as a God send that saves lives and, from my own observations, they appear to have done little or nothing to change driver attitudes. So I guess neither of us will ever be convinced otherwise.