Road safety experts issue joint statement in defence of safety cameras

source: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1152.html. Comments - some very long & detailed.

RoSPA and Road Safety GB have joined forces with other leading road safety organisations to voice concern about the switching-off of safety cameras.

To spark an informed debate, nine influential groups have put their names to a communiqué which unequivocally recognises safety cameras as an effective part of a much broader programme to save lives and reduce injuries on UK roads.

With many local authorities preparing to discuss cuts to their road safety budgets, it is feared decisions could be taken soon which may prove irreversible.

Before those decisions are taken, the communiqué’s co-signatories want to raise public awareness, demonstrate unity and feed the wider debate with facts.

The communique reads as follows:

We the undersigned agree that:

• Speed cameras help to save lives - an estimated 100 lives a year in the UK.

• Lives are saved by reducing speeding. Speeding significantly increases the risk of an accident happening; and also increases the severity of injuries in an accident.

• Cameras should continue to be used where casualty statistics show they are needed.

• Switching off cameras systematically would be close to creating a void in law enforcement on the road. Cameras currently account for 84 per cent of fixed penalty notices for speeding.

• Cuts might also threaten many speed awareness courses that give motorists an opportunity to learn about the dangers of driving too fast.

• While public spending needs to be cut, cuts must be justified by evidence. Cameras pay for themselves and currently make an important contribution to achieving compliance with the speed limit.

It is signed by:

• The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA): Tom Mullarkey MBE, Chief Executive

• The AA: Edmund King, President

• Association of Industrial Road Safety Officers (AIRSO): Graham Feest, Secretary

• CTC - the UK’s National Cyclists’ Organisation: Kevin Mayne, Chief Executive

• GEM Motoring Assist: David Williams MBE FIRSO, Chief Executive

• Institute of Road Safety Officers: Darren Divall, Chairman

• London Road Safety Council: Councillor Peter Herrington, Chairman

• Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS): Robert Gifford, Executive Director

• Road Safety GB: Alan Kennedy, Chairman

RoSPA has issued an evidence-based defence of speed cameras entitled: “Ten Reasons to Maintain Speed Camera Enforcement”. Click here to view the document.

Cars, Cops and Criminals - BBC 1 (now) - How speeding & inattention on roads kills

From Fast & Dangerous - a BBC 1 programme about the horrific death toll from speeding on British Roads. Watch the one hour programme until 6th September 2010: http://bbc.co.uk/i/tnqp4/

I'm trying to instill the fear of being caught back into the road user.

Supt. Steve Barry, Head of Traffic, Sussex Police 0'.50" & 3'10"

It's definitely a social problem that speeding is not considered 'a bad thing' in the UK

Supt. Steve Barry, Head of Traffic, Sussex Police 2'.10"

Anti-Social Driving
Anti-social driving can range from careless driver behaviour to deliberate activity. It not only affects road safety but also the quality of life in local neighbourhoods. With your help Sussex Police can crackdown on this behaviour.

 Click here to report antisocial driving in Sussex.

Human Rights and Speed Enforcement

How dare drivers drive faster than the speed limit! What right do they have to endanger the lives of me, my family and friends? Why aren't all cars fitted with Speed Limitation Devices, by law? Why aren't all speed hidden or covert?

As Slowerderbyshire (via Independent, via Facebook) says:-

"Current government, police and council policies regarding the setting of speed limits and their subsequent enforcement contravene the Human Rights Act, 1998. The articles being contravened include the following: 

• Article 2 “right to life” 

• Article 3 “prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment” 

• Protocol 1, Article 1 “peaceful enjoyment of possessions”

In 2004 the Department of Transport stated:

• The government expects all drivers to observe all speed limits on all roads at all times (except for emergency vehicles)

The government permits the police the routine use of covert speed cameras to catch drivers speeding “excessively”

The handbook for Safety Camera Partnerships states: 

• All cameras must be highly visible (rule 5) 

• Fixed/mobile cameras may only be used at a site with a significant killed/seriously injured record (rule 7) 

So government guidelines for safety camera placement require a disproportionate number of deaths or serious injuries before a camera may be deployed! The visibility guidelines along with the requirement for a high number of deaths/serious injuries mean that Safety Camera Partnerships are effectively prevented from enforcing the limits to the maximum of their ability. 

The guidelines also require that drivers be warned of speed enforcement well in advance of the cameras and that the cameras be highly visible. Research shows that the number of accidents in the immediate vicinity of the cameras has decreased. This decrease has not been statistically significant away from the immediate vicinity of the cameras. Research shows that most drivers just slow down in the immediate vicinity of the cameras and then speed up to their normal driving speed away from the cameras.

Highly visible enforcement strategies act to remind road users that enforcement is present and potentially increases both the actual and the perceived risk of detection. Non-visible enforcement acts to increase road user's sense of uncertainty and to prevent them from adapting their speeding behaviour at specific times and locations when speeding enforcement is clearly being carried out.

6 Recommendations

The rules governing Safety Camera Partnerships should be enhanced to permit the following: 

• Permitted to use safety cameras both covertly as well as overtly. 

• The only requirement for speed enforcement should be a history of speeding at the location in question. 

• Time average speed cameras to be used in preference to highly visible localized spot cameras. 

• Permit the use of 30mph repeater signs where appropriate/effective e.g. on a main road through a village

Britain's first car crash casualty - when the speed limit was 14mph

Pedestrian zombies are a deadly force - not all technology is good for road safety

A recent report by the AA says that the new technological age is creating ‘pedestrian zombies’ who are oblivious to road safety and could be responsible for many accidents.

AA patrols have noted a marked increase in the number of ‘iPod zombie pedestrians’, and the Association suggests that they could be responsible for some of the 500 pedestrian deaths or 26,887 pedestrian casualties last year.

Analysis from AA Insurance shows there has been a 5% increase in pedestrian inattention related collisions in the last year.

Descriptions in AA Insurance claims include, “he walked into the side of the car” and “pedestrian just walked out”. One even tells of a car swerving to avoid a pedestrian and ending up in a chemist’s shop.

Cars with ESC involved in 3% fewer crashes, 25% fewer on snowy & icy roads.

Proceedings, 13th ITS World Congress and Exhibition

8-12 October 2006, London, UK

Overall the cars with ESC are involved in 3% fewer crashes although the effectiveness is substantially higher under conditions of adverse road friction i.e. 25% reduction on snowy and icy roads. ESC equipped cars are involved in 15% fewer fatal crashes although this reduction represents the combined effect of ESC and passive safety improvements.

The study used the national accident statistics of Great Britain. The crash experience of 8951 cars was analysed and compared to a closely matching set of non-ESC cars using case-control methods.

Download PDF (Thomas P., 20006):  .pdf (79 KB)

Crabsallover Comments: These results are often statistically not significant and sometimes its not clear which results are significant and which are not. The graphs should highlight these differences in signficance, but do not.  This analysis of GB national accident data has indicated that cars equipped with ESC are involved in 3% fewer crashes overall compared to unequipped cars. This compares to 22% effectiveness in Sweden and 45% in Germany using similar methods. The UK ESC effectiveness results are an order of magnitude lower than those in Germany or Sweden - the report does not explain why there should be such a huge difference in the UK, Swedish and German results. The analysis has shown that ESC is most effective under poor road surface conditions such as rain, snow and ice where the effectiveness increases to 25%. The data also indicates that these conditions are relatively rare in Great Britain with only 2% of crashes taking place on snow or icy roads (but I doubt these conditions are an order of magnitude greater in Sweden or Germany).

Overall the cars with ESC are involved in 3% fewer crashes although the effectiveness is substantially higher under conditions of adverse road friction. ESC equipped cars are involved in 15% fewer fatal crashes although this reduction represents the combined effect of ESC and passive safety improvements. 

The final dataset comprised 890,648 cars of which 8,685 were equipped with ESC.... The data was for 2002 – 2004. The UK Accident Data records the severity of the injuries sustained in the crash. Fatal crashes include at least one casualty that has died within 30 days of the crash, seriously injured casualties have sustained at least a fracture or have been detained in hospital at least overnight while slightly injured casualties have sustained lower severity injuries, normally lacerations and contusions. The reductions of these casualties in vehicles equipped with ESC are shown in Figure 2 for all crashes, crashes where a car occupant was either killed or seriously injured (KSI) and fatal crashes. Overall ESC equipped cars were involved in 3% fewer crashes than non-equipped vehicles but KSI crashes were 19% lower and fatal crashes were 15% lower, although this result was not statistically significant.

On snow or icy road conditions ESC equipped cars had substantially fewer crashes. Overall there were 25% fewer crashes while KSI crashes were reduced by 53%. There were insufficient cases to evaluate fatal crash reductions of ESC fitted vehicles.

Frontal collisions of all severity levels were 10% lower in ESC equipped cars while side impacts reduced by 7%. KSI crashes were 18% lower in collisions to the front of the car and 28% lower in side crashes. Fatal crashes were 38% higher in ESC equipped cars in side impacts although there were insufficient cars to evaluate changes in frontal fatalities. None of these differences between front and side impact was statistically significant as was the apparent increase in fatalities.

Small family cars showed a non-significant increase in crash rates of 2% for the ESC equipped cars while large family cars had a 13% lower crash rate. Large off-roaders showed a 24% increase in crash rates. Small MPVs, with just one model of car, showed a 74% lower crash rate while large MPVs with 2 models showed a 29% increase.

DISCUSSION This analysis of GB national accident data has indicated that cars equipped with ESC are involved in 3% fewer crashes overall compared to unequipped cars. This compares to 22% effectiveness in Sweden and 45% in Germany using similar methods. The analysis has shown that ESC is most effective under poor road surface conditions such as rain, snow and ice where the effectiveness increases to 25%. The data also indicates that these conditions are relatively rare in Great Britain with only 2% of crashes taking place on snow or icy roads.

Although the benefit to Great Britain from ESC does not appear to be as large as in other countries with more frequent adverse road surface conditions it is nevertheless still significant in financial terms. In 2004 there were 292,000 cars involved in crashes in GB, most of which were not equipped with ESC, these results indicate that if they had been there would have been nearly 9,000 fewer crashes. The UK Department for Transport has estimated the average cost of a crash to be £62,197 in 2004 values10 so the total saving resulting from uniform fitting of ESC to cars is £544,845,720 (€730,093,265).

CONCLUSIONS This analysis of the GB national accident data has shown that cars equipped with electronic stability control systems have a lower crash involvement rate than non-equipped cars. The overall reduction for crashes of all injury severity is 3% but on icy roads or snow this rises to 25% but the accident data shows that only 2% of crashes occur under these conditions.

Mercedes Active Safety UK TV commercial

Mercedes TV commercial link. 'Best or Nothing' maxim. Jorg Breurer introduces Attention Assist which prevents micro-sleep. Michael Fehring introduces Pre-Safe.

effectiveness of electronic stability control system in reducing loss of vehicle control (Iowa, 2010)

source: search Google Scholar effectiveness "electronic stability control" - 60 links since 2010

An empirical study of the effectiveness of electronic stability control system in reducing loss of vehicle control.
Yiannis E. Papelis1, , a, , Ginger S. Watson2, a, and Timothy L. Browna,
a The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States Received 16 August 2008; revised 18 January 2009; accepted 21 April 2009.  Available online 7 April 2010.


Abstract A significant percentage of fatal vehicle crashes involve loss of control (LOC). Electronic stability control (ESC) is an active safety system that detects impending LOC and activates counter-measures that help the driver maintain or re-gain control.

To assess the effectiveness of ESC in preventing LOC, an empirical study was conducted on a high-fidelity driving simulator. The ESC systems for two vehicles were incorporated into the simulator's dynamics code which was calibrated to ensure engineering validation.

The study utilized three scenarios designed to recreate typical LOC situations, and was designed to assess the effects of ESC presence, vehicle type, scenario, age and gender. A total of 120 research participants completed the study. Results showed a statistically significant reduction in LOC with ESC compared to without ESC (F = 52.72, p < 0.0001).

The study findings of 5% LOC with ESC and 30% without ESC match several epidemiological studies that have analyzed ESC effectiveness on real-world crashes, providing strong support to the use of driving simulation for studying driver behavior.

Study conclusions suggest that wide-spread utilization of ESC is likely to reduce traffic fatalities. Keywords: Electronic stability control; Electronic stability program; Loss of control; Safety; Driving simulator

Article Outline

1. Introduction 2. Background on ESC 3. Method 3.1. Simulator 3.2. Experimental design 3.3. Participants 3.4. Treatments 3.5. Dependent measures 3.6. Procedure 3.7. Statistical analysis 4. Results 5. Discussion 6. Conclusion Acknowledgements References

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 757 638 6560; fax: +1 757 686 6214. Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 42, Issue 3, May 2010, Pages 929-934 Assessing Safety with Driving Simulators

Evidence for Electronic Stability Control (ESC) effectiveness

source: chooseESC

my comments in italic quotes

Literature Review, Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control 2007, USA Many studies now have estimated that ESC reduces fatal single-vehicle crashes by between 30 and 50% among cars and 50-70% among SUVs. Furthermore, fatal rollover crashes are estimated to be 70-90% lower with ESC regardless of vehicle type. The review discusses the methodological differences and examines the findings according to vehicle type, crash type and severity, and road conditions. (Fegurson S.A., 2007)    pdf (1.8 MB) This metastudy was sponsored by Robert Bosch - the inventors of ESC. Table 1 has comments on 12 ESC studies. Proceedings, 13th ITS World Congress and Exhibition 8-12 October 2006, London, UK Overall the cars with ESC are involved in 3% fewer crashes although the effectiveness is substantially higher under conditions of adverse road friction i.e. 25% reduction on snowy and icy roads. ESC equipped cars are involved in 15% fewer fatal crashes although this reduction represents the combined effect of ESC and passive safety improvements. The study used the national accident statistics of Great Britain. The crash experience of 8951 cars was analysed and compared to a closely matching set of non-ESC cars using case-control methods. Download PDF (Thomas P., 20006):  .pdf (79 KB) These results are often statistically not significant and sometimes its not clear which results are significant and which are not. The graphs should highlight these differences in signficance, but do not. This analysis of GB national accident data has indicated that cars equipped with ESC are involved in 3% fewer crashes overall compared to unequipped cars. This compares to 22% effectiveness in Sweden and 45% in Germany using similar methods. The UK ESC effectiveness results are an order of magnitude lower than those in Germany or Sweden. The report does not explain why there should be such a large difference in the UK, Swedish and German results. The analysis has shown that ESC is most effective under poor road surface conditions such as rain, snow and ice where the effectiveness increases to 25%. The data also indicates that these conditions are relatively rare in Great Britain with only 2% of crashes taking place on snow or icy roads. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Status Report, Vol. 41, No. 5 and News Release 13 June 2006 ESC reduces the risk of fatal multiple-vehicle crashes by 32 percent amd the risk of all single-vehicle crashes by more than 40 percent — fatal ones by 56 percent. While both cars and SUVs benefit from ESC, the reduction in the risk of single-vehicle crashes was significantly greater for SUVs — 49 percent versus 33 percent for cars. The reduction in fatal single-vehicle crashes wasn't significantly different for SUVs (59 percent) than for cars (53 percent). ESC reduces the risk of fatal single-vehicle rollovers of SUVs by 80 percent, 77 percent for cars. ESC was found to reduce the risk of all kinds of fatal crashes by 43 percent. Losses under collision coverage are about 15 percent lower for vehicles with ESC than for predecessor models without it. However, ESC doesn't have much effect on property damage liability claims or the frequency of injury claims. These findings track police-reported crashes, which show little effect of ESC on the risk of low-severity multiple-vehicle crashes. Statistical analysis of road accidents and fatalities as well as traffic insurance claims. Download PDF (IIHS, 2006):  .pdf (313 KB) Press release. National Agency for Automotive Safety & Victims' Aid (NASVA) 18 February 2005 ESC decreased the accident rate of single-car accidents by about 44% and that of head-on collisions by about 24%; the decrease was higher for more severe accidents; the decrease of single accidents and head-on collisions was higher on wet road conditions (58%) than on dry conditions (20%). Comparison of data of 1,471 single-car accidents or head-on collisions not caused by drunk driving or drowsy driving involving ten models that were originally designed and shipped without ESC but subsequently became to be equipped with ESC were chosen from the accident data held by the Institute for Traffic Accident Research and Data Analysis (ITARDA) in Japan. Accident numbers were related to the number of such cars in use. Download PDF (Ohono & Shimura, 2005):  .pdf (83 KB) International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV) June 2005 The overall effectiveness of ESC on all injury crashes except for rear end crashes was 16.7 +/- 9.3%, while for serious and fatal crashes the effectiveness was 21.6 +/- 12.8%. The effectiveness for serious and fatal crashes on wet roads was 56.2 +/- 23.5 %. On roads covered with ice and snow, the corresponding effectiveness was 49.2 +/- 30.2 %. The estimates are based on the assumption that rear end crashes on dry road surfaces are not affected at all by ESC. Download PDF (Lie, A., Tingvall, C., Krafft, M. & Kullgren, A. , 2005):  .pdf (82 KB) Vehicle Design and Research Pty Limited for Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW June 2005 In Australia, ESC is estimated to reduce road fatalities in light vehicles by 29%. Assuming that ESC can prevent 50% of loss-of-control accidents and that an ESC units costs $1,000, ESC is estimated to have a benefit cost ratio of 0.51. Compilation of ESC safety evaluation results throughout the world. Download PDF (Paine, M., 2005):  .pdf (848 KB) Wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisstand zu ESP. 10 Jahre ESP Berlin, 23 February 2005 In Germany, 100 per cent equipment of all cars with ESP is estimated to reduce the number of accidents with car occupant injuries by about 7 -11 %. The reduction in the car occupant fatalities would be approximately 15 -20 % The study compiled all available accident studies on ESP effectiveness. Langwieder, K.,2005 National Highway Traffic Safety Agency, USA Single vehicle crashes were reduced by 35% in passenger cars and by 67 % in SUV crashes. The study also showed significant or borderline-significant reductions in the multi-vehicle crash rates per 100,000 vehicle years with ESC. As multi-vehicle crashes we used as the control group and it is possible that multi-vehicle crashes are being reduced by ESC, this means that the true effectiveness of ESC could be higher than estimated for single vehicle crashes. Download PDF (Dang, J., 2004):  .pdf (61 KB) Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia, USA ESC reduced single-vehicle crash involvement risk by approximately 41 % and single-vehicle injury crash involvement risk by 41 %. This translates to an estimated 7 % reduction in overall crash involvement risk and a 9 % reduction in overall injury crash involvement risk. Based on all fatal crashes in the United States over 3 years, ESC was found to have reduced single-vehicle fatal crash involvement risk by 56 percent. This translates to an estimated 34 percent reduction in overall fatal crash involvement risk. The study compared crash involvement rates for otherwise identical vehicle models with and without ESC systems. Download PDF (Farmer, C., 2004):  fulltext.pdf (79 KB)

Mercedes-Benz launch new Car Active eSafety systems that actively prevent cars from straying into the paths of others

This autumn, Mercedes-Benz is to launch new Car Active eSafety systems CAeS that actively prevent cars from straying into the paths of others.

WhatCar.com observes that it is an extension of CAeS which is already available. Indeed, at present, Mercedes-Benz offers blind-spot and lane-change warnings that alert the driver if the car is about to move into the path of another coming up behind, or drift unintentionally into another lane.

"The big difference with the new active systems," the review explained, "is that they apply the brakes on one side of the car to bring it back onto a straight course, even if there is no immediate risk of a collision."

The active lane-change system works as long as there is a solid white line on one side of the car and a dotted line on the other". So that means it will only work on motorways, I presume.

Both safety features will initially be available on the revised S-Class saloon and CL coupe plus the E-Class family.

Britain’s most senior traffic policeman is at war with the Government over road safety

Crabsallover notes the decision to terminate speed cameras in Oxford and is concerned about the possible reduction of use of speed cameras in Dorset. Do speed cameras save lives? What is the evidence?

Philip Pank Last updated August 9 2010 12:01AM source: The Times

Britain’s most senior traffic policeman is at war with the Government over road safety, claiming that a decision to cut funding for speed cameras will put lives at risk. In letters seen by The Times, Chief Constable Mick Giannasi has warned ministers of a rise in fatal road accidents as councils switch off speed cameras because they can no longer afford to operate them.

Mr Giannasi estimates that four out of five cameras will be obsolete within five years, adding that redundancies in back offices mean that enforcement is already being curtailed.

The Government has cut £38 million from this year’s road safety budget. 

Mr Giannasi, the chief constable of Gwent Police, heads the roads portfolio for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). He said that the

Government’s decision to cut 40 per cent of the road safety grant paid to local authorities, coupled with a pledge not to fund new fixed cameras, had provoked “unintended consequences for road safety” as councils take cameras out of service. 

“We have invested heavily in infrastructure. There is a danger that it is dwindling away. I think a vacuum has been created and people are reacting to that inappropriately,” he told The Times. “If nothing is put in place, speeds will rise and casualties will grow.” Driving standards will deteriorate, child road safety programmes will be hit and the education of offenders will cease, Mr Giannasi said.

The Treasury would also lose a “significant” revenue stream. Mr Giannasi has written two letters to Mike Penning, the road safety minister, setting out his concerns. In one he writes: “If this unacceptable situation is to be avoided, immediate action is essential . . . I cannot overstate the urgency of this situation and the potential damage that will be the consequence of inaction.”

Mr Giannasi insists there is no rift with the Government but he told The Times: “I think it is appropriate for me to say I am disappointed with the level of leadership.” In his reply, Mr Penning assured the police that “there is an important role for safety camera enforcement”.

In his first day in office, Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Transport, proclaimed “the end of the war on motorists” and promised to make good on a manifesto pledge to pull the plug on funds for new cameras. Oxfordshire became the first council to turn off its speed cameras last week, but a slew of other counties are contemplating similar moves. Northamptonshire has taken some cameras out of operation, Somerset plans to do the same, while at least three others — Buckinghamshire, Derbyshire and Wiltshire — have plans to pare back their networks. Devon and Cornwall are considering an end to speed cameras while Dorset and Norfolk are among regions to have put their cameras under review.

Road safety campaigners and motoring organisations insist that speed cameras slow traffic and save lives. 

The first speed cameras were trialled in Britain in 1992. A law passed in 1999 allowed local authorities to use the devices. Road deaths fell to a record low of 2,222 last year.

The cameras’ demise would signal “the return to the racetrack” for some drivers, according to one expert. Richard Allsop, professor of transport studies at University College London and a trustee of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS), said: “The concerns are real, PACTS shares these concerns, and we support ACPO in drawing the new minister’s attention to the unintended consequences that could be severe if urgent thought is not given to avoiding them.” Professor Allsop said it would be “extremely serious” if the Government had not drafted a new road safety strategy by Christmas.

“If you let up, it will go into reverse,” Professor Allsop said, citing the Netherlands, which relaxed road safety programmes in the early 1990s, only to suffer a rise in road deaths. 

Since the development of the first fixed Gatso (brand of speed camera) speed cameras in the Netherlands, they have been installed across continental Europe. Their proliferation over the past decade reflects a consensus that the cameras are effective at slowing traffic and reducing road deaths. There is no sign yet of other countries following Britain’s lead in cutting back on the devices. On the contrary, some campaigners are pressing for a change in international law to allow drivers caught speeding abroad to face prosecution in their home countries. At present, automated speed camera fines cannot follow you home.

More than 6,000 speed cameras in Britain raise about £100 million each year. Money collected through £60 speeding fines goes to the Treasury, which in turn provides grants to local authorities. The Department for Transport leaves councils to set their own spending priorities.

Chief Constable Mick Giannasi is roads officer for the police chiefs

Huw Evans Agency

Getting speed limits reduced in villages

DorsetRoadSafe http://www.dorsetroadsafe.org/index.php?ref=36 say 'if you would like a speed limit to be lowered your request will be assessed based on the nationally agreed criteria:-http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/dftcircular106/dftcircular106.pdf. This paper gives a reference to Taylor (2000) mentioned (page 6) in point 17) 

Research has in particular proven the correlation between speed and accident frequency and severity, and accident reductions. Much of this evidence has been demonstrated by and around mean vehicle speeds including, for example, how each 1 mph reduction in average speed reduces accident frequency by 5% (Finch et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 2000).

Figure A (from Taylor, M. C., Lynam, D. A. and Baruya, A. (2000), TRL Report 421 – The Effects of Drivers’ Speed on the Frequency of Road Accidents. Crowthorne: TRL) concludes (pg 2) that:-

• in any given situation, higher speeds mean more accidents and the higher the speed the more rapidly does accident frequency rise with increases in speed. 
• Reducing the speed of the fastest drivers (ie. those travelling faster than the average for the road) would yield the greatest benefits in reducing death and injury. 
• The percentage reduction in accident frequency achievable per 1mile/h reduction in average speed is between 2-7%. The earlier 5% figure remains a robust general rule. The reduction achievable, however, varies according to the road type and the average traffic speed. Specifically:-
• about 6% for urban roads with low average speeds; 
• about 4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
• about 3% for the higher speed urban roads and rural main roads. 
• In urban areas the potential for accident reduction (per 1mile/h reduction in average speed) is greatest on those roads with low average speeds (Figure A). These are typically busy main roads in towns with high levels of pedestrian activity, wide variations in speeds, and high accident frequencies.

from page 19, point 74 Traffic Advisory Leaflet 09/99 (20 mph Speed Limits and Zones) (DETR 1999a) gives advice on how and where to implement 20 mph speed limits and 20 mph zones.

from page 20, point 78. 20 mph zones are very effective at reducing collisions and injuries. This is confirmed in research that shows that the number of accidents involving injury to children may be reduced by up to two-thirds (Webster and Mackie, 1996).

Dorset RoadSafe 'No Excuses' Campaign

Dorset RoadSafe commenced their 'No excuse' campaign in January 2010 in an effort to reduce accidents in Dorset. The website says:-

"Dorset Road Safe is a partnership of local councils, emergency services and other organisations working together to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on Dorset’s roads.

Throughout 2010, the partnership is delivering the ‘no excuse’ project, which aims to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads by cracking down on the types of bad and careless driving and riding that cause crashes.

These include inappropriate speed, drink and drug driving, not wearing a seatbelt and distractions like using a mobile phone while driving.

'No excuse' is using a combination of additional enforcement on the roads with awareness-raising, publicity and education activities in a big effort to drive casualties down."

Follow this link to download the 'no excuse' fact sheet (276kb PDF) >


In Dorset the Killed, Serious injured and injured figures for 2008 and 2009 are given in a table.

Casualties are categorised by severity:

Fatal – injuries resulting in death within 30 days of collision occurring

Serious – over night detention in hospital (examples include paralysis, fractures, major lacerations)

Slight – examples include whiplash, sprains or minor lacerations

Based on DfT figures, the costs to the community for each severity of crash are as follows:

Fatal - £1.6million
Serious - £190,000
Slight – £19,000

Our targets for casualty reductions are set by the Department for Transport (DfT). In the government’s current road safety strategy, “Tomorrow’s Roads – Safer for Everyone”, three national casualty reduction targets are to be achieved by 2010 based on the 1994-1998 average. They are:

1. A 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) 
2. A 50% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured. 
3. A 10% reduction in the number of people slightly injured. 

The validated 2009 KSI figure for the whole of Dorset although being an improvement on the KSI figure for 2008 with a reduction of 14%, from 437 in 2008 to 376 2009, is still behind the 2010 target and is likely to place Dorset within the lower quartile of performance across Great Britain.

In order to achieve the 2010 target set by the DfT KSI casualties need to fall by 24% in 2010 based against the figure for 2009.

All casualties by month and local authority area

The table shows the number of fatal, serious and slight casualties by month split into local authority areas with a comparison of 2009 against 2008.

buckle up!

In Dorset in the first six months of the 'No Excuses' campaign more than 10,000 offences have been committed - speeding, not wearing seatbelts and using mobile phones are the most commonly detected offences. 

• majority for speeding
• 21% for not buckling up. 
• More than 680 (7%) people were caught using their mobile phones while driving.

The 'best' excuse I've heard for not wearing a seatbelt....

A woman stopped for not wearing a seatbelt: "I just had a spray on tan applied and don't want to smudge it"

Latest events from Dorset RoadSafe.

Speed Limiters

My new Nissan Qashqai Acenta has a brilliant Active Speed Limitation Function (ASLF) aka Speed Limiation Assistance (SLA) which I've used at every speed for a month now. For example on a 30mph road you set the speed limiter to 30mph and it will stop you going above 30mph unless you floor the accelerator pedal. Going from 30mph onto a 40mph speed limit road a single click sets the speed limiter to 40mph. It has transformed the way I and Sharon drive! Less chance to get speeding tickets or cause an accident by driving too fast!!

ASLF are defined (para. 4.2) by Euro NCAP as Adjustable Speed Limitation Function. ASLF means a function which allows the driver to set a vehicle speed Vadj, to which he wishes the speed of his car to be limited or above which he wishes to be warned. Vadj – Adjustable limit speed Vadj means the speed voluntarily set by the driver. Active ASLF means an ASLF which, when activated, requires the driver to make a positive action in order to exceed Vadj.

Euro NCAP says "In 2009, French carmakers made tackling speeding drivers their priority. Citroen, Peugeot and Renault as well as new premium brand in Europe Infiniti were rewarded by Euro NCAP for their fitment of a driver controlled speed limitation device. In cars: Citroen C3, Peugeot 3008, 308 CC, 5008, the Renault Grand Scenic and Infiniti FX. Speed limits are intended to keep traffic speeds below the maximum that is appropriate, ensuring the safety of motorists and other road users."

The only other supermini / small family car / small MPV I've found that has a speed limiter fitted as standard is the Renault Clio Dynamique 1.6.

The Mazda 2 Sport has a speed alarm fitted. I've test driven this car and the alarm can only be set for one speed limit eg 30mph. I think I'd tend to ignor the alarm more often than not!

Euro NCAP also quote Research (pg 3) carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory that has shown that at 25% above the average speed, a driver is six times more likely to have an accident than a driver travelling at the average speed.

From 2009 Euro NCAP have given max. 1 point or 14% (out of 7 points) for Speed Limitation Devices in the Safety Assist section. Details section 4 - Euro NCAP February 2010 v 5.2 Safety Assist.
It seems that the extra 0.1 for "can system be set at speed" is essential - so 0.9 points is minimum I'd personally accept (my Nissan Qashqai would possibly score 1.0 points if tested by Euro NCAP)

I will be a better driver

Sharon gave me a nice birthday present today, an Institute of Advanced Motorists 'Skill for Life for drivers' - everything you need to pass your Advanced Driving Test and become a full Member of the IAM.