1,754 and 1,792? Thats splitting hairs, surely! 38 deaths difference... We used to average around 6 or 7 thousand, fifty years ago. It came down year by year but any year is gonna produce glitch, either lower or higher. Did you look at all the years in between? The six prior to that first figure? I bet you looked for the lowest figure to compare. This is hardly proof of roads getting more dangerous. 

Deaths on U.K. roads are getting rare when you compare like for like and add in more traffic too. There has never been more traffic in history then now and there are fewer deaths then in the 1950's.

 

Accidents... Thats a whole different thing! Many go unrecorded, ones that do don't always involve personal injury and then, survival is higher due to car and medical technology. Otherwise, yes, it would be utter carnage on the streets!

Edited 17 October, 20187 yr by mrgf

28 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

2012 UK ROAD DEATHS 1,754. 2014 UK ROAD DEATHS AND LATEST FIGURES FOR 2017 1,792. Our roads are not getting safer quite the opposite

Can you say "regression to mean"?

11 minutes ago, mrgf said:

1,754 and 1,792? Thats splitting hairs, surely! 38 deaths difference... We used to average around 6 or 7 thousand, fifty years ago. It came down year by year but any year is gonna produce glitch, either lower or higher. Did you look at all the years in between? The six prior to that first figure? I bet you looked for the lowest figure to compare. This is hardly proof of roads getting more dangerous. 

Deaths on U.K. roads are getting rare when you compare like for like and add in more traffic too. There has never been more traffic in history then now and there are fewer deaths then in the 1950's.

 

Accidents... Thats a whole different thing! Many go unrecorded, ones that do don't always involve personal injury and then, survival is higher due to car and medical technology. Otherwise, yes, it would be utter carnage on the streets!

Passed my test in 1983 when wearing a seatbelt became mandatory but 25% of road deaths today are as a result of people not wearing one when they crash. Go figure STUPIDTY at its HIGHEST EVOLUTION.

24 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

Can you say "regression to mean"?

 

I think you are quoting me, picking up on the earlier post! I can quite happily say regression to the mean, I know all about it and how people espouse a victory in lowering deaths to cyclists after there is a flux of deaths one year, they stick down a bit of paint and then, sure as eggs is eggs, the next year, the deaths are back to an average.

I remember a very astute motorcycle journo stating that speed cameras did exactly the same thing. Authorities stick one at a scene where as little as two additional deaths occur, annually. then state the camera made a difference. Regression to the mean kicks in and the camera made a difference! The journalist then suggested burying a copy of Motorcycle News at the scene and doing a ritualistic dance, would have produced the exact same result! Would have been a damn sight funnier to watch as well!

52 minutes ago, KenONeill said:

Can you say "regression to mean"?

Sorry 2014 was 1,775 just noticed.

1 hour ago, mrgf said:

1,754 and 1,792? Thats splitting hairs, surely! 38 deaths difference...

 

I would say to make that figure anywhere near valid it needs to be a percentage of the number of vehicles using the road.

 

Even then it could contain 3 horse riders who were thrown to theirs deaths, 23 cyclists who decided helmets weren't for them and 12 motorcyclists who decided the laws of physics didn't apply when you on a motorised 2-wheel device.

 

As noted in comments above, figures can and do lie, well lie is maybe a little harsh but you can't take them on face value for instance, it would probably be reasonable to expect more road deaths in a year where there was prolonged heavy rainfall, long periods or dense fog or lots of snow and ice, all things that can contribute to road collisions.

 

There are calls for speed camera at an "accident blackspot" near me but neither of the two fatalities that happened a year or so apart were due to excessive speed, one was caused my ex-doctor killing an old lady crossing the road as he could barely see and didn't declare it to the DVLA and the other was just poor driving within the speed limit.

@mrgf - I didn't mean to quote you; I'd posted my response to shyvrs before I saw your previous. In any event we're certainly agreeing about the active abuse of statistics!

20 minutes ago, Russ77 said:

 

There are calls for speed camera at an "accident blackspot" near me but neither of the two fatalities that happened a year or so apart were due to excessive speed, one was caused my ex-doctor killing an old lady crossing the road as he could barely see and didn't declare it to the DVLA and the other was just poor driving within the speed limit.

 

 

I find it frustrating that accidents are used as excuses for speed cameras (up to half a mile away), regardless of cause

 

There was a tragic accident near where I live, teenager died, 4 seriously injured, driver was estimated to have been doing 55-60 in 30mph limit, was just after pub closing time, (police refused to comment to media the drink or drug levels of driver so remains speculation) and the one the death was due to being thrown through rear window ( as wasn't wearing seatbelt), when he lost control and rammed a concrete fencepost.  But some used it as a reason for requesting a blanket 20mph limit in area,  even though accident wouldn't have happened at 40 or 50 mph.

 

 

I even heard of camera being placed within that half mile area, being placed on a duel carriageway that runs alongside or over/under THE ACTUAL ROAD the accident happened in. Quite how this makes the accident death road safer is anyones guess. A sceptic might say that the dual carriageway will carry a higher volume of traffic, so statistically the camera will capture more speeding motorists and dish out more fines. 

Makes you wonder!

IF ........they had speeding motorist  (convicts ) in the 1860,s they would have been deported  at least to Australia ,so if YOU  are caught speeding NOW think yourself lucky.????????

On 17/10/2018 at 14:43, SurreyJohn said:

 

I find it frustrating that accidents are used as excuses for speed cameras (up to half a mile away), regardless of cause

 

 

 

I don't think they really care about being able to prove that. One of the favourite spots for the vans near me is a runway straight, runway wide piece of road which is one of the few safe overtaking spots for  quite a few miles. I have lived near and have drien on that road for 20yr and have never heard of any accident on that streatch.

 

I'm sure it's not a cynical excuse to catch drivers frustrated at being held up on a single carriageway road for miles overtaking on a massive straight piece of road......

 

https://goo.gl/maps/Uy3Z5qQgd252

Edited 19 October, 20187 yr by Aspman

A stretch of dual carriageway was built nearby some years ago ,a 50mph limit was set and cameras erected before completion but less than a mile away a stretch of roads with bends and a well known accident black spot with many fatalities has no cameras and national speed limits.

Aspman,

Several long straights on the A94!  

They message they are sending is to the general motoring public, do not use this more direct and convenient route and expect to do anything other than well below a good average speed, stick behind any HGV using this route, or just get on the A90. 

Add to the gridlock and pollution in the City of Dundee.

Edited 19 October, 20187 yr by Offski

Don’t know if it’s considence but camera vans around here seem to be always parked in walking distance of an eatery.

Here the drivers of camera vans appear to not know the NSL for the type of vehicle they are driving on the class of road they are driving on going from location to location.

No idea how often a Speed - Safety Partnership vehicle gets a NIP.

3 hours ago, Sad555 said:

A stretch of dual carriageway was built nearby some years ago ,a 50mph limit was set and cameras erected before completion but less than a mile away a stretch of roads with bends and a well known accident black spot with many fatalities has no cameras and national speed limits.

So, since they claim these are "safety cameras", the implied statement is that the PTB have deliberately engineered a dangerous road!

1 hour ago, KenONeill said:

So, since they claim these are "safety cameras", the implied statement is that the PTB have deliberately engineered a dangerous road!

In the opinion of many the trend for spline curved roads (with few or no safe overtaking opportunities) instead of straights plus a few corners only where needed (to provide safe opportunities for overtaking slower vehicles such as lorries) IS deliberately engineering an unsafe road.

1 minute ago, PetrolDave said:

In the opinion of many the trend for spline curved roads (with few or no safe overtaking opportunities) instead of straights plus a few corners only where needed (to provide safe opportunities for overtaking slower vehicles such as lorries) IS deliberately engineering an unsafe road.

Agreed, with the note that Sad555 was talking about a dual cabbageway!

On long straight single or dual carriageways or dual carriageways that have reduced speeds, fixed or average speed cameras you have to sometimes look closely to see if there are minor exits or entrances onto the carriageways that might only have occasional use but are public roads or from private roads, and also where pedestrians or cyclists might be crossing occasionally or even regularly.

A77 heading down towards Dutch House Roundabout or North from and the road off to Prestwick or Ayr being a 50 mph Average Speed Camera area like that.

Now with new fly over / bridges but still 50 mph Max limit.

Edited 19 October, 20187 yr by Offski

Cameras on new dual carriageways are also located on them as away of reducing noise levels  to appease some nimbys.

A90 Dundee to Stonehaven Average speed cameras catch an average 29 speeders a day, they might as well extend the into Aberdeen then.

No so sure the road is an safer as plenty still speed where they know the have entered after a camera or will exit before one.

A90 speed cameras 'most active in Scotland' _ Press and Journal.mhtml

On 19/10/2018 at 15:56, Offski said:

A77 heading down towards Dutch House Roundabout or North from and the road off to Prestwick or Ayr being a 50 mph Average Speed Camera area like that.

Now with new fly over / bridges but still 50 mph Max limit.

 

I used to live (and my folks still do) in a village just off the A77 at the bit you're talking about. Trying to get completely over the road out to the farms. other villages , or turn right either on or off the main road always seemed more dangerous in the old days, when people did 70 (and more) along the road, but it feels like there were more gaps in the traffic then due to the differences in speed. When the 50 limit got introduced it seemed the traffic was always bunched tighter with fewer gaps to get through, so it's a good thing they have the flyovers now

^^^ Exactly that. I was there yesterday.

Worst i use is the A9 at Dunkeld getting onto the A9 now to go North or South.  i take the old back road and join a bit further North now.

Damn,  caught pretty.    That will be £100 & 3 points and more of an insurance increase.

About 75 on a 60 road. Lovely morning turned out to be expensive. @Aspman might get a giggle seeing as it is where the van regularly is on the A94.

In a dream world enjoying the empty road with width for about 4 vehicles or more across it. 

Good to see you learned your lesson from the other day! 

 

On the plus side, since those clowns chose not to do you on that occasion, potentially you would have been looking at 6 Points and £200.

 

Silver lining and all that....