Only 6.4% of fatal crashes caused by excessive speed

[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.

[Neale]

Interesting stats.

I can understand how excessive speed can cause accidents, but I also think that they do milk speeding fines a bit.
IMO Inattention is something that is overlooked, sadly its alot harder to police. With all of the technology in cars that can distract a driver, Im surprised theres not more accidents caused by Inattention.
Ive lost count of the amout of people out there driving around in their own little world oblivious to whats going on around them (fail to keep left is a good example as well as eating breakfast & doing makeup whilst driving)

Like you pointed out though its a drop in the ocean when you compare it all to the numbers of suicide. Thats a very sad stat.

[StealthAu]

Just goes to show the speed cameras and heavy fines are doing the trick, or so it would be sold.

[csv8]

I have always said that there is an over emphasis on speed. Its a conveinient excuse/revenue raise...

[mik]

Pretty much what most expected, exceeding the speed limit is only a small part of the road toll, driving under the influence, is still a biggy.

[karj]

Just wondering if anyone knows how those stats were compiled?

If an accident involved DUI and excessive speed, would that be counted under both columns or just DUI?

I think that is an important thing to know because if it turned out that a quarter of the DUI fatalities were also speeding excessively, it would bump up the fatalities due to excess speed quite significantly.

[BHDOGS]

it just proves the lack of common sense on the roads

[Kevxr8Leexr6]

Another catagory not noted or defined is the stock and wildlife (kangaroos,wombats etc) that escapes most , perhaps put down to inattention but swerving to miss any of these, causing head on collisions,braking with a car travelling same direction to run off the road Etc. Im sure in country areas would be one of the main causes of near or fatalitys.

[new2ford]

I read a report a few years ago that said the majority of road fatalities nationally occurred at or under the posted speed limit, but I can't recall the source now.

I think the failure to keep left statistic is a telling one, I've always believed it is a road safety hazard.

[mike_nofx]

How exactly does the fail to keep left cause a fatality?

While its the one thing that annoys me more than anything on the road, just curious as to how it causes a fatality.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

How exactly does the fail to keep left cause a fatality?

While its the one thing that annoys me more than anything on the road, just curious as to how it causes a fatality.

By increasing risk and uncertainty. This is my stab at it - a professional might put it better. Safe driving involves a certain amount of predictability. On a multilane road the "predictable" factor is that traffic moves along on the left and only moves to the right when passing.

When you have a driver sitting in the right lane, those behind are placed in a dilemma and have to do a bit of reassessment and have their attention diverted to deal with this. The smooth flow of traffic is slowed down, what to do? Wait behind the car till they wake up and move to the left, or do all the necessary checking in a moving environment and pass the car on the left? The scope for accidents is much greater.

At its worst it produces weaving, as I've seen on the Gold Coast motorway where cars are scattered at all speeds over all lanes like Browns Cows and those wanting to pass weave in and out of them (through all lanes) to pass. In doing so they risk being collected by a vehicle coming up a lane to which they are changing, at speed in their blind spot.

Failing to keep left simply creates a dangerous road environment in which the likelihood of accident is greater. And that seems to be reflected in the SA stats.

[IDT]

It does my head in when I see stats like these. There is never a single cause for a crash.

Over simplifying these stats has resulted in so many stupid laws.
I'd like to see stats where the three prime causes for each incident is counted. Also rather than concentrate on fatalities. Include permanent major disability (say more than 50% disability for over 12 months). As far as i am concerned the difference between the two is shear luck.

[Solomonkane]

I've never bought into the 'speeding kills' propaganda the government and others put out. In my view, as far as speed is concerned it is inappropriate speed for the conditions that is the issue. It's legal to do 80kmh on the freeway heading into Brisbane city, but I wouldn't be doing it in a heavy Queensland rain. When there are cars lining the sides of the road, or a crest ahead, it makes sense to slow down, not go as fast as legally allowed.

For the most part no government has ever really struck me as being truly serious about reducing road fatalities. For example, various studies have indicated that the introduction of speed cameras has resulted in an increase not a decrease in accidents. The general theory is that many drivers are too focused on their speedometers rather than the road ahead. I have yet to see any government genuinely looking into the reliability of such research.

My mother was booked for going 1kmh over the speed limit. When the issue of variance in speedometers was raised we were basically ignored. There's a road going down hill out Ferny Grove way that years ago used to be sign posted 60kmh. I got booked there once for doing about 65kmh. About a year later I noticed that it was now 80kmh. No changes to the road, no changes to anything, but suddenly 20khm faster was now okay.

It has been years since I had my last speeding ticket, but got hit a few months back on the way to Boonah. Due to tiredness, first time going out that way, numerous confusing road detour signs, and glancing at my speedometer at the wrong times, when taking the exit from the highway I missed seeing the sign indicating the change from 80kmh to 60kmh. Motorbike cop clocked me doing 78kmh. Early in the morning, no other cars, excellent long range visibility, so absolutely zero danger to me or anyone else. Didn't matter, nor the fact that I was obviously doing what I thought was the legal speed. Outrageous comment from the motorcycle cop by the way. When I said it was obvious I had not been intentionally speeding he actually replied "No one intentionally speeds!"

Ultimately, the fact is I broke the speed limit, so fair enough, I paid the fine. But for a while it really got under my skin that here I am doing the right thing 99% of the time, slowing down for roadwork signs, weather conditions, low visibility etc., and I get booked for unintentionally speeding. I still think being let off with a warning would have been more appropriate, but then that would mean the government missing out on the money right? The way governments appear to ignore statistics and studies that do not support the idea that speed kills, and the way a large majority of the police in Queensland are treating drivers lately, I have a hard time believing that they care about anything other than the massive amounts of money they are raking in.

[mike_nofx]

That's all I can imagine it would be also.

But then, is it still the "cause" of the accident, particularly if the driver failing to keep left is not involved in the accident. Such as frustrated drivers behind the fail to keep left driver who may change lanes into another driver, wouldn't that make following drivers at fault from either: changing lanes to endanger, overtake without due care, follow too closely or excessive speed?

Then, if the slow driver IS involved in the accident, most likely rear ended (well they're going slow aren't they? So they wouldnt do the rear ending) doesn't that make the following driver at fault, either by: inattention, following too closely or excessive speed??

I'm not defending those who fail to keep left, I actually hate that. Just more wondering how they come up with those figures.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

That's all I can imagine it would be also.

But then, is it still the "cause" of the accident, particularly if the driver failing to keep left is not involved in the accident. Such as frustrated drivers behind the fail to keep left driver who may change lanes into another driver, wouldn't that make following drivers at fault from either: changing lanes to endanger, overtake without due care, follow too closely or excessive speed?

Then, if the slow driver IS involved in the accident, most likely rear ended (well they're going slow aren't they? So they wouldnt do the rear ending) doesn't that make the following driver at fault, either by: inattention, following too closely or excessive speed??

I'm not defending those who fail to keep left, I actually hate that. Just more wondering how they come up with those figures.

This reminds me of the old driver who said " I've been driving for over fifty years and never had an accident but gosh I've seen hundreds" !!! lol!

It may not in this case have been the slow driver's fault because they were not actually involved but they were the catalyst that started the chain of events that led up to the crash and the fatalities. That is the sad reality of a lot of these type of accidents.

For many years, and its probably still happening, speed was disproportionately resresented in statics because if the police attending an accident could not find an obvious cause they would put speed as a factor on the report because if they put cause undetermined it meant that they would be bogged down with paperwork for weeks and unable to do what they were really there for so speed became the scapegoat.

[XBROO]

I would imagine it would be failing to keep left of the centre line.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by XBROO

I would imagine it would be failing to keep left of the centre line.

That might make more sense. So failing to keep left of the centre line and you cause a head on collision with opposite direction traffic?

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

That might make more sense. So failing to keep left of the centre line and you cause a head on collision with opposite direction traffic?

Yes. It has nothing to do with keeping left on a multilane highway. It's about crossing on to oncoming traffic.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

Yes. It has nothing to do with keeping left on a multilane highway. It's about crossing on to oncoming traffic.

OK that was very ambiguous. I would call them crossover accidents.

[Linkachu]

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

[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.

[XBROO]

Notice inattention is the biggest killer, so get of your phones and gadgets yuppies.

[Ben73]

Sounds about right. I doubt that anything will ever change though.

[In Focus]

Of course, it could be argued that if speed limits were higher (or non-existent), then the percentage of speed-related accidents would increase.

[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.

The other issue is that the stats only focus on deaths... and "injuries".
But there is no definition of just how injured people were in these accidents as well. Where they left crippled? disfigured? amputee? had 12months rehab in a special clinic to learn how to walk again? left brain damaged?

We are probably dieing less in higher speed accidents due to the safety features of most cars, but do we know the other stats?

Personally the campain adds should focus on "reducing" accidents, not just focusing on "speed kills" mantra.

[svo supporter]

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.

The other issue is that the stats only focus on deaths... and "injuries".
But there is no definition of just how injured people were in these accidents as well. Where they left crippled? disfigured? amputee? had 12months rehab in a special clinic to learn how to walk again? left brain damaged?

We are probably dieing less in higher speed accidents due to the safety features of most cars, but do we know the other stats?

Personally the campain adds should focus on "reducing" accidents, not just focusing on "speed kills" mantra.

The thread is focusing on the factors that caused deaths, not injuries......In saying that, the speeding portion you'd imagine within the gov't dept, they'd have all the relevant information relating to the speed a car was doing when the death occurred.....Whether it'd be they were over the speed limit, or suggested speed limit for the corner....Whether they'd release it to curious people like yourself or not is another story....Might be worth your while checking it out, if you're interested.

The stats relating to injuries.....Again, I am sure there would be all this relevant information in some gov't department office....All hospitals keep records of injuries to people, causes, wait times etc etc.....And again, if you're interested in finding this out, you could check it out for yourself and see if they would release it.

[Werd.]

Still 6.4 crashes for every 100 that could have been entirely avoided by not speeding.. Not to mention the accidents caused by speeding that weren't reported as such, what would that bring the number to.. 10%? 20%?

Speeding related accidents are also more likely to be fatal. You can twist words as much as you want but cameras are still needed, speed kills.

Some of the opinions voiced here are funny, and I only read the first page.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Werd.

Still 6.4 crashes for every 100 that could have been entirely avoided by not speeding.. Not to mention the accidents caused by speeding that weren't reported as such, what would that bring the number to.. 10%? 20%?

Speeding related accidents are also more likely to be fatal. You can twist words as much as you want but cameras are still needed, speed kills.

Some of the opinions voiced here are funny, and I only read the first page.

And how do you determine that?
6.4% Speeding was A factor, not the ONLY factor.

That is as silly as saying 33% were in Commodores so if Commodores were banned then there would be 33% less crashes.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by Werd.

Still 6.4 crashes for every 100 that could have been entirely avoided by not speeding.. Not to mention the accidents caused by speeding that weren't reported as such, what would that bring the number to.. 10%? 20%?

Speeding related accidents are also more likely to be fatal. You can twist words as much as you want but cameras are still needed, speed kills.

Some of the opinions voiced here are funny, and I only read the first page.

Really?

As previously said, this stat is that speed contributed, not the cause. There is nothing to prove that if speed wasn't a factor the deaths wouldn't have occured.

If the stat's weren't bias (IMO) then you would probably see speeding contributing to as little as 1 or 2%.

[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.