Only 6.4% of fatal crashes caused by excessive speed

[StockieXR6T]

Originally Posted by Linkachu

Speed is factor in any accident, the gov and police play on those words.

Yeah I've never seen two stationary cars collide, course kind of defeats the purpose of having a car.

[BadMax]

84% or motorcycle fatalities on Victorian roads are caused by car drivers.

[In Focus]

Originally Posted by Brazen

D.U.I. 19
Inattention 25
Fail to Stand 4 (collisions when turning right across an intersection)
Fail to Keep Left 13
Change Lanes to Endanger 1
Fail to Give Way 6
Reverse Without Due Care 3
Follow Too Closely 1
Overtake Without Due Care 2
Disobey – Stop Sign 1
Disobey – Give Way Sign 4
Died Sick or Asleep At Wheel 2
Vehicle Fault 1
Excessive Speed 6
Drunken Pedestrian 6
Total 94

Interesting. Only one from a vehicle fault; 93/94 fatalities due to human error.

Although we'd all hate it, it seems the best way going forward is to take the human factor out of driving.

[BHDOGS]

Originally Posted by BadMax

84% or motorcycle fatalities on Victorian roads are caused by car drivers.

really where is this study i can see because i call ********

[UberKnee]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

really where is this study i can see because i call ********

I dont know it seems legit, riding a motorcycle is kind of like riding a bumper car you're always just waiting for that ******** that cant see and pulls out in front of you or into you.

[XBROO]

Us bike riders have a saying SMIDSY which stands for Sorry Mate I Didn't See You. Which would be some of the inattention ones.

[graham7773]

stealthAU, maybe a bit tongue in cheek, has possibly hit the nail on the head. 6.4% because the cameras are doing their job?
Revenue raising but also keeping drivers somewhere near posted speed limits. Just imagine if everybody did keep to speed limits. Govco would have to look to alternative revenue sources, ie the paye people. Higher taxes?

In Focus, "Although we'd all hate it, it seems the best way going forward is to take the human factor out of driving"...

You may or not have noticed that the car manufacturers are trying to do just that. E.G. distance sensors, abs and auto brakes, traction control and a number of other devices that take over various functions of the car when drivers can not or do not do it. Automation is coming, just a matter of time.

[steve.zissou]

biggest cause of road deaths,

incompetent governments (and the people that vote for them)

[xisled]

What this report tells me is people are speeding less and the camera and point to point camera are working.

Less accidents involving speed.

This report proves they are working. All the above is what the Govco will say.

[DivHunter]

Originally Posted by graham7773

stealthAU, maybe a bit tongue in cheek, has possibly hit the nail on the head. 6.4% because the cameras are doing their job?

The continuously increasing revenue reveals that lie.

If speed cameras did what the operators and cash grabbing govts told us they wouldn't be economocally viable because no one would get caught.

Except for all the faulty cameras, incorrectly timed ambers etc.

[Dash_XR]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

One needs to define how the data is collected and in what context the accident occurs as well.

"speed" as opposed to "speeding" are two different things.

As an example... a right hand bend has an advisory sign which says 60, driver doing 80 loses it around the corner and crashes, dies. Was "speed" a factor? yes... was "speeding" a factor? yes.

A car doing 100kmh in a 100zone for whatever reasons leaves the road and hits a tree and driver is killed... was "speeding" a factor? no... was speed a factor? yes... because of the high impact forces involved.

But "speed" is in every accident, cars have to be moving to crash. I'd assume "speed" and "speeding" would me over the limit in these stats.

It's the same as Inattention would be a factor in most cases.

The only thing that seems clear is speeding by itself isn't as big as the government likes to play out.

[BadMax]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

really where is this study i can see because i call ********

I'm guessing with the ignorant attitude like yours, you couldn't possibly possess the skills required to successfuly ride a motorcycle on the road.


http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/a...es/riders.aspx

http://mumbrella.com.au/motorcycle-safety-ad-126383

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5rTI...layer_embedded

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by XBROO

Us bike riders have a saying SMIDSY which stands for Sorry Mate I Didn't See You. Which would be some of the inattention ones.

Of course it has nothing to do with 90% of bike riders dangerously weaving in and out of heavy traffic or lane splitting between 2 cars in moving traffic, does it.

Ask most bike riders and they'll tell you all accidents between cars and bikes are the cars fault, a rider could not possibly be at fault.

Riders really do need to ride very defensively, and that would mean ALWAYS expecting the worst, such as not hanging in a cars blind spot for more than a split second. Because even if it is the cars fault, its not going to help pointing the blame from a hospital bed.

(Note: I have a riders licence, and ride on the road)

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Of course it has nothing to do with 90% of bike riders dangerously weaving in and out of heavy traffic or lane splitting between 2 cars in moving traffic, does it.

Ask most bike riders and they'll tell you all accidents between cars and bikes are the cars fault, a rider could not possibly be at fault.

Riders really do need to ride very defensively, and that would mean ALWAYS expecting the worst, such as not hanging in a cars blind spot for more than a split second. Because even if it is the cars fault, its not going to help pointing the blame from a hospital bed.

(Note: I have a riders licence, and ride on the road)

Cars carry on like this as well.....so it's not a bike specific thing....Just so happens, the bike rider fairs worse as a result of the stupidity if they're involved...

FWIW, I am always very wary of bikes on the road.....Through no fault of their own, they can be rather difficult to see on the road, so I do my best to make sure I don't collect an innocient bike rider. So I do appreciate how difficult it is to ride a bike on the roads, with so many idiots out there trying to hospitalise you.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by DivHunter

The continuously increasing revenue reveals that lie.

If speed cameras did what the operators and cash grabbing govts told us they wouldn't be economocally viable because no one would get caught.

Except for all the faulty cameras, incorrectly timed ambers etc.

Wrong, here in SA the police recently said that revenue was down $35mil in the last financial year.
They were forcasting a year on year growth of $10mil so infact the revenue growth has not only ceased, but declined by a further $25mil.

Speed camera's are working and the police praised the motoring public for their compliance.
The issue, however, is despite the trend to slow down, the road toll hasnt eased much.
This, i believe it is due to extra traffic on the roads.
The true indicator would be deaths as a % of road users which you will find has eased.

Were never going to get a 0 road toll, it would be impossible as many deaths are accidents pure and simple.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

But "speed" is in every accident, cars have to be moving to crash. I'd assume "speed" and "speeding" would me over the limit in these stats.

It's the same as Inattention would be a factor in most cases.

The only thing that seems clear is speeding by itself isn't as big as the government likes to play out.

No... you can be killed while stationary.

Speed and speeding are two different things.
An impact into a tree at 40kmh as opposed to 100kmh would give you different results in terms of injury etc.

Like I said.. if I am doing 100kmh in a 100zone and hit a tree... "speed" was a factor because of impact forces.... but I wasnt speeding.

[EVLKNEVL]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Wrong, here in SA the police recently said that revenue was down $35mil in the last financial year.
They were forcasting a year on year growth of $10mil so infact the revenue growth has not only ceased, but declined by a further $25mil.

Speed camera's are working and the police praised the motoring public for their compliance.
The issue, however, is despite the trend to slow down, the road toll hasnt eased much.
This, i believe it is due to extra traffic on the roads.
The true indicator would be deaths as a % of road users which you will find has eased.

Were never going to get a 0 road toll, it would be impossible as many deaths are accidents pure and simple.

We would need the road toll data from the previous financial year to validate your statement. The percentage of fatal crashes caused by excessive speed would have had to be greater than 6.4% for us to be certain that a reduction in speed camera revenue = a reduction in motorists using excessive speed = a reduction in fatalities caused by excessive speed. If there is an increase in traffic on the road, it is expected the total number of fatalities will increase proportionately; if there is no increase or even a decline in the overall road toll, we cannot thank the speed cameras until we distinguish that they are directly linked to the effective decline. If you are correct about deaths as a percentage of road users easing, then according to the data from the OP speed cameras alone cannot have influenced much of that- 6.4% or less..

[BadMax]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Of course it has nothing to do with 90% of bike riders dangerously weaving in and out of heavy traffic or lane splitting between 2 cars in moving traffic, does it.

90% you say? How did you derive those figures? Crystal ball maybe or just talking crap? You see, those are the sorts of comments that irritate riders, maybe even modified car drivers. They're the sorts of comments expected from sources like ACA or TAC, based on no truth what so ever.

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Ask most bike riders and they'll tell you all accidents between cars and bikes are the cars fault, a rider could not possibly be at fault.

False, get on bike forums and you constantly read about riders blaming themselves by putting themselves in what may not even be a silly situation. Unfortunately when you have barely capable drivers crashing into other cars, riders need to ride defensively most of the time, sometimes you need to go on the offense to get out of danger.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Of course it has nothing to do with 90% of bike riders dangerously weaving in and out of heavy traffic or lane splitting between 2 cars in moving traffic, does it.

Ask most bike riders and they'll tell you all accidents between cars and bikes are the cars fault, a rider could not possibly be at fault.

Riders really do need to ride very defensively, and that would mean ALWAYS expecting the worst, such as not hanging in a cars blind spot for more than a split second. Because even if it is the cars fault, its not going to help pointing the blame from a hospital bed.

(Note: I have a riders licence, and ride on the road)

Mate I don't really give a rats ****, who's in the wrong and who's in the right. I ride to survive because right or wrong, I'm the one getting hurt.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Of course it has nothing to do with 90% of bike riders dangerously weaving in and out of heavy traffic or lane splitting between 2 cars in moving traffic, does it.

This is legal in many jurisdictions, and in some Australian states where it is not legal the law is being revised to make it legal. So suck it up princess and wake up to what is going on around you. It is not dangerous to lane split if done correctly and people in cars are awake.

[DivHunter]

Originally Posted by mcnews

This is legal in many jurisdictions, and in some Australian states where it is not legal the law is being revised to make it legal. So suck it up princess and wake up to what is going on around you. It is not dangerous to lane split if done correctly and people in cars are awake.

It's not legal in moving traffic and won't be made legal in moving traffic.

[DivHunter]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Wrong, here in SA the police recently said that revenue was down $35mil in the last financial year.
They were forcasting a year on year growth of $10mil so infact the revenue growth has not only ceased, but declined by a further $25mil.

Speed camera's are working and the police praised the motoring public for their compliance.
The issue, however, is despite the trend to slow down, the road toll hasnt eased much.
This, i believe it is due to extra traffic on the roads.
The true indicator would be deaths as a % of road users which you will find has eased.

Were never going to get a 0 road toll, it would be impossible as many deaths are accidents pure and simple.

I can't find a $10M shortfall claim from SA police, anyone have a link? I can easily find areas where the expected revenue went well over.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226338326487

Or where revenue decreased but fatalities increased disproportionately to the increase in traffic.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/102181/a...11-3m-of-2009/

They do not change behaviour as effectively as real police making a traffic stop.

They are completely unreliable in fixed and handheld form both radar and laser.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by irish2

Seems to be a lot of those categories are due to poor driver training and assessment. 5 yearly tests should be Australia wide, with more emphasis on post license training.

they were talking about that on ABC radio yesterday. 5 of the callers were in support of it (even the 75 yo man) and only one against (she made a good point that the bureaucracy is already struggling to cope)

you know what the transport depts are like:
Patty - "Some days we don't let the line move at all"
Selma - "Those are called 'weekdays', hehe"

[flappist]

Originally Posted by DivHunter

It's not legal in moving traffic and won't be made legal in moving traffic.

Would this be like:

CB radio does not exist in Australia and will never be legal. (1970s)
There will never be a GST (1990s)
Random breath testing is an invasion of privacy and will never be law. (1980s)
Sexual relations between members of the same gender is illegal and will always be so (1970s)
Gun registration is a waste of money and will never happen (1990s)
P plates are not used in QLD as they are discrimatory (1990s)
Turning left at a red light after stopping will never be legalised as it is too dangerous (2011)
There will never be a carbon tax (2010)
Speed cameras will only be put in known black spots and will be preceded by high visiblity signage (1980s)

etc. etc. etc.

The only time that there is not a 100% chance of change is when using a vending machine........

[DivHunter]

Originally Posted by flappist

Would this be like:

CB radio does not exist in Australia and will never be legal. (1970s)
There will never be a GST (1990s)
Random breath testing is an invasion of privacy and will never be law. (1980s)
Sexual relations between members of the same gender is illegal and will always be so (1970s)
Gun registration is a waste of money and will never happen (1990s)
P plates are not used in QLD as they are discrimatory (1990s)
Turning left at a red light after stopping will never be legalised as it is too dangerous (2011)
There will never be a carbon tax (2010)
Speed cameras will only be put in known black spots and will be preceded by high visiblity signage (1980s)

etc. etc. etc.

The only time that there is not a 100% chance of change is when using a vending machine........

No it's like someone misreading a post. What could be clarified as legal would be filtering. Lane splitting in moving traffic is either failure to travel in a marked lane, overtaking on the left or using an emergency lane / shoulder. They are fairly basic and long standing road rules. They could change for some reason in the future however it is unlikely.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by DivHunter

I can't find a $10M shortfall claim from SA police, anyone have a link? I can easily find areas where the expected revenue went well over.

Heres the link...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1226504874343

[Scradley6666]

Originally Posted by mik

To me the speed that kills that govco rambles on about is usually the accidents that involve reckless type speeding from the career speeder which as shown is only a smaller percentage than other common well known reasons for major accidents.
We know that the dude who may be a career speedster and more often than not knows where the speed camera`s are will only be caught with roving patrols, and we also know that does`nt put penny`s in the bank .
All of those other reasons people crash are valid, there are probably more reasons people crash not related to speed, fatigue gets a very small mention, i would have thought it to be higher on the list,
also little mention of people driving with poor health, blood pressure , diabetes, sleep apnea, poor eye sight, dementia, mental illness, etc,etc if they where really serious at bringing the road toll down, the very least they would do is making drivers take medicals and competency tests mandatory every x amount of years,
hmm m hard decision, put up more camera`s and add to govco`s kitty................. or .................. spend the money from camera`s on more road patrols and add competancy and health checks.

but not much incentive for the bean counters with the last scenario ..

I can only speak for diabetics in your list, but I'm 25 and I get a medical done every 2 years just so I can keep my licence. Live in Victoria now and by the way it was the same in N.S.W as well.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by Brazen

According to the South Australian Governments own report into crashes across SA in 2011, the following table shows the main causes of fatal accidents:

http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/***...nkbook2011.pdf

Page 65

Table 18 Fatal Crashes and Fatalities by Apparent Error of Road
User Responsible, South Australia,

D.U.I. 19
Inattention 25
Fail to Stand 4 (collisions when turning right across an intersection)
Fail to Keep Left 13
Change Lanes to Endanger 1
Fail to Give Way 6
Reverse Without Due Care 3
Follow Too Closely 1
Overtake Without Due Care 2
Disobey – Stop Sign 1
Disobey – Give Way Sign 4
Died Sick or Asleep At Wheel 2
Vehicle Fault 1
Excessive Speed 6
Drunken Pedestrian 6
Total 94

What is interesting is that failing to keep left caused almost double the fatal crashes compared to excessive speed. And to put a further perspective just as many fatal crashes were caused by drunk pedestrians. Yep hundreds of thousands of vehicles driving millions of kilometres a year in South Australia caused just as many fatal accidents due to excessive speed than 6 drunk pedestrians.

keep in mind that excessive speed does not necessarily mean breaking the speed limit, some people can be using excessive speed driving at 40 in a 50 zone if there is significant trafffic. It goes to show how few fatal crashes are actually caused by exceeding a speed limit. Further data suggests that only 1 or 2 out of the 6 excessive speed crashes actually involved cars exceeding the speed limit (I need to do further research, the government data appears to be hazy on this....)

After this data was released, amazingly the South Australian government released a record amount of fixed speed cameras, mobile speed cameras, point to point speed cameras and millions in advertising resulting in the highest speed camera revenue on record.

Any death is sad and tragic whether caused by speed or otherwise, to put a sad comparison on the 6 fatal crashes caused by excessive speed, in the last full year of data, 197 people committed suicide in South Australia.

Interesting stats, I like many on here am not surprised. It's sad that the TAC/Police only seem to target speeders and drink drivers. Easy targets?

Curb side 'safety cameras' don't pick up on Inattention (25), Fail to Keep Left (13), etc. which is disapointing because these cause the most deaths and your average driver would feel safe as long as they are not drunk or speeding.

[Trevor 57]

I have resisted posting in here, but here goes:


Hands up those people who think 6.5 people out of every 100 DYING as a result of speed is an acceptable number?

[mcnews]

We are mortal. People die. If you want to be safe stay inside and don't go out. You live, you die. Face up to it.