United Kingdom – The British Superbike School’s Mike Abbott has made what some may regard an outlandish statement (though we at Motorcycle Minds don’t), following the recent publication of the 2015 National Statistics (Great Britain) on road collisions.
His statement that the very misleading “Speed Kills” strap line is a big fib and that it needs to be abandoned, from what is seen as rhetoric used in road safety circles. Perhaps it is just maybe an easy solution to use for blame when looking for an overarching one stop panacea.
Mike says, that after abandoning the misleading strap line, the need is to “focus on paying attention, train road users properly and significantly increase the levels of traffic policing as RoSPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents) have recently proposed.”
Adding that, “A new course is needed on ‘Collision Avoidance’ based on data and solid theory, not hysteria; on the cause of collisions, the dangers of losing control and how that can be avoided, and the importance of always paying attention – stressed. This could be applied primarily to drivers and riders who have collisions and serious offenders, not marginal speeders who present at best a very low risk.”
Finishing with, “We have collectively allowed ourselves to be hijacked by the anti-speed lobby and misleading populist newspaper stories, and the Government taking an ineffective soft self-funded option rather than dealing properly with the root causes of road fatalities.”
He has also picked up from what he has been told that, “more than half the drivers in the country have now done a Speed Awareness course for minor speed infractions. That’s circa 23 million courses at £90 a go, plus no doubt a healthy profit for the AA who delivers them. Drivers and riders have lost time off work and been fleeced collectively for an estimated £2 billion.”
Having had to take one these courses he surmises that his was, “dominated by confused pensioners (my peer group) many of whom misunderstood how fast they could legally go, so they’ll probably go faster as a result. And we all no doubt spent the next few months looking for speed signs and cameras, as opposed to where we were going.”
However while taking some of the headlines from Mike’s well-constructed article/rant, it is effectively from the perspective of somebody who is actually involved through the:
- British Superbike School, which provides circuit tuition in motorcycle handling, mastering bike control away from road hazards.
- SharpRider a DVSA ‘Enhanced Rider Scheme’ intended as extra training for full ‘A’ motorcycle licence holders
the full article is produced below and explains how Mike came to his conclusions.
You may or may not agree with what he has written, whatever perspective of road safety you come from: as an “expert”, an enthused rider or motorcycle trainer, but as Mike has said to us, “ ‘Advanced Instructors’ mostly fall out with each other anyway, and I am just waiting to be shot at yet again for encouraging reckless riding – it’s become a bit of a theme.” why would this be any different?
We have no doubt there will be disagreement, in fact we know there are many opinions on aspects of improving road safety – reducing collisions – reducing injuries and fatalities.
‘Speed Kills’ – A Big Fib
The 2015 National Statistics on road collisions were published recently. Interesting reading.
Speed does not kill. It is only a ‘contributory factor’ in 16% of fatal accidents.
Regarding just fatalities, these are the top causes as reported by the police:-
Loss of Control 32%
Failed to look properly 27%
Careless reckless or in a hurry 20%
Exceeding the speed limit 16%
Failed to judge others path or speed 14%
Poor turn or manoeuvre 14%
Driving too fast (but within limits) 12%
(DoT – RAS50007 2015)
These don’t add up to 100% as there can be more than 1 contributory factor, but clearly in 84% of fatal accidents, speeding was not a factor.
Regarding published trends for all collisions over the past 5 years, ‘loss of control’ has improved slightly probably due to vehicle developments, but ‘failing to look properly’, being ‘careless reckless or in a hurry’, or ‘making a poor turn or manoeuvre’ have all steadily increased. ‘Driving too fast for the conditions’ is stable at 7%, so no change there, and ‘speeding’ for all collisions isn’t even in the top 10. (Table RAS50002).
We are simply not tackling the primary root causes of fatalities.
In response to an inappropriate focus on ‘speed’, many speed limits have been reduced, speed cameras installed costing £ millions all over the country, ‘safety camera’ partnerships abound.
‘Speed Awareness Courses’ arrived.
I was told at the recent Road Safety (AIRSO) Conference that more than half the drivers in the country have now done a Speed Awareness course for minor speed infractions. That’s circa 23 million courses at £90 a go, plus no doubt a healthy profit for the AA who deliver them. Drivers and riders have lost time off work and been fleeced collectively for an estimated £2 billion.
The focus has succeeded in reducing speed I think (as has it appears high fuel prices). Vehicles are noticeably driven in general more slowly than they were, but this seems to had had little to no effect, as it was never the main problem.
Strangely, those who are convicted of driving or riding significantly over the speed limit don’t have the option of a speed awareness course – which is just plain ‘nuts’, as these people clearly are likely to be the major continuing risk. Maybe this is the problem? My course was dominated by confused pensioners (my peer group) many of whom misunderstood how fast they could legally go, so they’ll probably go faster as a result. And we all no doubt spent the next few months looking for speed signs and cameras, as opposed to where we were going.
This is the 5 year rolling average change of KSI (fatalities and serious injuries) to smooth out peaks and troughs from the latest DoT report:-
Serious casualties have been decreasing significantly during the last 35 years, but are now static (marginal %age improvement), with improvement tailing off over the last 5 years. Look at just the fatalities (excluding serious life changing injuries):-
So in the last 5 years fatalities are about the same – very little improvement. The main explanation for any improvement is probably that cars are getting safer with airbags and ever stiffer crash test requirements. This seems to be confirmed as motorcycle fatalities are actually up 8% in 2015. Mile for mile you are now 57 times more likely to be killed on a motorcycle than in a car.
It could be argued that reduction in speeds has also improved the outcomes, and no doubt that is what the ‘speed lobby’ will claim, but there is no evidence that I have seen to support this. And it’s I believe likely to be far more effective tackling the primary causes of fatal collisions, rather than accepting the worsening situation and trying to minimise the impact (no pun intended).
You can’t argue that speed awareness is reducing the impact speed and severity of collisions, as the number of SKI’s is now static.
The blind focus on speeding to tackle fatalities has failed. Speeding related fatalities hit a low of 194 and 12% in 2012, but show an increasing trend, up to 244 and 16% in 2015. The situation is now significantly worse.
We are all very lucky to have world class emergency services who seem to have been steadily improving survival rates, which again may be a significant factor in reducing deaths.
There are also separate figures included this year from the NHS (not the police) and they show deaths and serious injury admissions from road collisions (MAIS3+) have remained largely unchanged for many years.
As the ‘Speed Awareness’ program has clearly failed, there is talk now of ‘zero tolerance’ for speeders, which is very unlikely to help either. The huge damage already done to the relationship with the police will suffer further. Before speed cameras the police applied common sense to speeders, usually only prosecuting when the speeding was dangerous, and lecturing drivers instead. I believe it worked.
12% of fatalities were actually caused by vehicles within the speed limit but still travelling too fast for the conditions. And this is even after the reduction in speed limits on very many ‘high casualty’ routes, which I suspect has caught many if not most of the speed awareness attendees. There is no consistency in the application of speed limits which look almost random at times. We have some 30 mph dual carriageways and a 60 mph limit on most single track roads. Ridiculous.
22 million drivers and riders have been lectured on the evils of speeding, misled into believing that keeping within the speed limit is the single most important thing to do, and will help to keep them and others safe. What a misleading wasted opportunity of biblical proportions.
40% of fatalities – two and a half times more than the 16% who were speeding – were caused by a failure to look properly or the miss-judgement of another’s path or speed. Twice as many fatalities as speeding (32%) were caused by the driver/rider losing control. 20% were careless, reckless or in a hurry, 14% were making a poor manoeuver, and 13% were either drunk or drugged (Table RAS50007).
(NB The combination of both speed and losing control contribute to less than 1% of collisions).
The opportunity is there on ‘Speed Awareness Courses’ to present a truthful picture of what actually causes collisions and how to avoid them. Primarily we all need to take more care and pay far more attention, avoid distractions, concentrate. The fact that you end up on a speed awareness course is because you weren’t paying proper attention!
The key factor of ‘reaction times’ is not stressed. TRL research shows reaction times at least double if you’re not paying attention, increasing stopping distances by 30 foot at 30mph, 60 feet at 60mph, and worse case can be 6 times longer if you can’t recognise a hazard for what it is. Drivers and riders also need to be taught properly how to control their vehicles as ‘loss of control’ is the primary cause of twice as many collisions as speeding, despite all the features on modern vehicles.
Standards of driving are noticeably poor. 55% of drivers fail their tests which is appalling (30% of motorcyclists fail) – so many poor drivers inevitably get through by chance eventually, which may also be a major factor. Training in general needs totally revamping to make it more effective. Vehicle control needs to be taught properly as does such skills as overtaking and driving on a motorway which amazingly are not covered.
There are doubtless often early warnings via minor collisions by which the insurance industry could identify those who need further training, before probably an inevitable ‘big one’.
We need to abandon the very misleading ‘Speed Kills’ strap line, focus on the need to pay attention, train road users properly and significantly increase the levels of traffic policing as RoSPA have recently proposed. Back to ‘Think’?
A new course is needed on ‘Collision Avoidance’ based on data and solid theory, not hysteria, on the cause of collisions, the dangers of losing control and how that can be avoided, and the importance of always paying attention stressed. This could be applied primarily to drivers and riders who have collisions and serious offenders, not marginal speeders who present at best a very low risk.
We have collectively allowed ourselves to be hijacked by the anti-speed lobby and misleading populist newspaper stories, and the Government taking an ineffective soft self-funded option rather than dealing properly with the root causes of road fatalities.
Original Source: Mike Abbott – British Superbike School
Reported road casualties in Great Britain, main results: 2015
SharpRider – www.sharprider.co.uk
Dear David,
Evidently we are on parallel train tracks – trying to explain a simple perspective and see it twisted into a completely different one is irritating to say the least. As we are descending into handbags at dawn – Dunce? it’s time to draw a line. I repeat, the correlation between speed and the severity of injuries does not hold – statistically, but also in the view of experts that have attended collisions – unfortunately I can only use the examples of Northern Ireland – i.e. where high speed racing on public roads are annual events and of course from the expert views of RTC investigators with 30 odd years experience and last but not least Jim from California with his wealth of knowledge.
I think we’re done here David.
Elaine, I have seen the video clips and I’m aware of the comments of various “experts.” I agree that focus on speed hijacks more important topics, such as what type of training might reduce the frequency of crashes. Frankly, I understand what the “experts” have said, and I disagree with them, and–since you are leaning on them–I therefore disagree with you. I expect a higher level of science from you.
The topic at hand is whether speed contributes to crashes and fatalities. Scientifically speaking, if there is one incident in which speed has contributed to a fatality, then the theory that speed does not contribute is disproved.
You have admitted that there are some incidents in which speed is an identified cause of the crash. Therefore, your argument is disproved.
But before we send you into the dunce’s corner, let’s discuss why speed might contribute to a crash.
Would you admit that faster speed results in greater distance covered for the same observation time?
Would you agree that the faster the speed the less time is available for reaction?
Would you agree that the faster the speed the greater the time and distance to execute an evasive maneuver?
Do you agree that the greater the speed at impact (assuming a direct impact, not a slide) the greater the potential for injury?
Would you agree that a motorcycle approaching another vehicle at a speed higher than expected might cause a viewing driver to misjudge the actual speed or distance?
And, rather than excuse speed as a contributing factor because the reports say so, let’s examine the number of fatal crashes where the motorcyclist was exceeding the posted limit. In the USA, a majority of bike/car collisions involve the motorcyclist exceeding the posted limits. What are the percentages on your side of the pond?
David,
I suggest that you did not look at the video nor perhaps did you read the report, because if you had then you would have seen that speed and the severity of injuries are not the issue.
What is the issue, is the mechanism of how the rider falls and what he/she hits. It is self evident that if a rider hits a vehicle head on he/she will be mush, BUT if a rider leaves the motorcycle which is the case in the vast majority of collisions, the outcome is – as Dr Hinds suggests – in the lap of the gods – why is this? Because – as above – it depends entirely on the outcome of how the rider falls and where he/she crashes, or crashes with.
I suggest you look at the video and then comment.
But to add to the perspective that I am putting forward, I would include a presentation from a Northern Ireland road traffic collision investigator with 32 years experience. He indicates that speed is not the major factor in fatalities.
My own study highlights that of the 41 fatalities of motorcyclists that I looked at, only four were due to speed and that is because a vehicle pulled out in front of them.
What we seem to be excluding from this discussion is “blame”. Was the collision avoidable if the rider had not been speeding? The answer would most probably be yes. But this isn’t what we are discussing. As in Damian Coll’s presentation – yes the rider was going too fast, but equally was the fact that the truck should have been able to see him – but didn’t – why is that? Because of the height of the cabin – which demonstrates issues with the ability to see the motorcycle’s headlights.
http://www.righttoride.co.uk/virtuallibrary/ridersafety/damiencoll.pdf
In other words – it’s complicated and to dismiss speed as a killer is in my view high-jacking the problem from a far more complex discussion – which is that in any collision scenario, speed is just one of many components which lead to a crash. Secondly Jim Ouellet and I discussed speed and I bow to his experience – which is that after studying over 3,000 motorcycle collisions, he is convinced that speed does not equate to the severity of the injuries.
You appear to want to compare motorcycles to cars – that’s like comparing apples with pears – you can’t do that, because the dynamics are completely different.
Using million miles/kilometres travelled as a means to compare risk is a minefield – for a number of reasons – not least because different countries and datasets use different methodologies to arrive at a figure. In other words – depending on how the count was carried out the variation could be 5%, 10%, 50% – it just depends on the measurement and what variables were used.
In any event – you might wish to read this wonderful document from a Dutch organisation – it is a detailed analysis of how to present bullshit as fact. In the conclusion (page 49) the authors claim that “The report has documented that gross comparisons per vehicle kilometre travelled will lead to errors.” https://www.swov.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/rapport/r-2002-12.pdf
To conclude – there is a segment of road safety “gurus” who keep pushing the issue of speed as the number one killer or at least responsible for the severity of injuries etc. I believe that this is an irritating distraction of what is a far more important and complex issue. That said, that I believe the posted speed signs exist for a reason and any sensible rider (or driver) should respect them.
Personally, I think that riders should be taught how to fall – along with how to operate a bike in emergency situations – but I guess the insurance companies wouldn’t go for that. Who would pay for teaching people to be good at surviving? No money in that!
Elaine, I respect your research and knowledge, but I suggest that it confuses the issue to toss all the crash factors into the same salad. But I’m willing to have a go.
Of course, how the motorcyclist lands and what he/she strikes is extremely important. If the crash happens to be a long slide, where the motorcyclist separates from the bike, injuries will be mostly abrasions and contusions, and crash speed won’t matter as much. That’s why road racers are generally able to limp away.
But if the crash is a direct impact, then impact speed becomes critically important. I would suggest that the higher the impact speed the greater the chance of injury. That’s a big part of gear testing, for instance the typical drop tests for helmets. While impact speed isn’t specified, acceleration is. However, in the typical helmet drop test, impact speed would be around 12 mph. Drop tests aren’t done with higher accelerations. We might theorize that no helmets would pass if subjected to drop tests that would produce say, 14 or 18 mph impacts. So, I argue that speed is important in many ways. The important factor here is the ability of the human body to survive trauma. When impact forces are high, human tissue and bone can simply “mush.”
We might wonder about the threshold for serious injury, in terms of direct impact speed. My science advisor suggests that impacts up to about 40 mph are probably survivable, and as impact speed increases above that threshold the chances of serious injury go up. That may help explain why motorcycle crashes tend to produce more and greater internal injuries than bicycle crashes.
To put this in perspective, if a motorcyclist slams into the side of a lorry at 60 mph, it’s very likely to be his/her last ride. If the crash is a sudden get-off and a long slide down the tarmac, then injuries are more likely to be abrasions. And, as a side note, if the abrasions are extremely painful, the surviving motorcyclist might be more cautious about repeating the error. If protective gear prevents painful injuries, the motorcyclist might come to believe that gear will protect against all injury. I don’t know the danger comparison in Europe between bikes and cars, but in the USA the numbers are well documented. A person driving a motorcycle in the USA is 3,800% more likely to die than a person driving a passenger vehicle, mile for mile. There must be some scientific reasons for that, and I argue that impact speed is a big reason.
Hello Hardly,
I love a debate so in this case I will have to disagree with you. I will give you a few examples – not least my own study -the one I did with Jim Ouellet’s advice and support – which indicates that speed does not determine the severity of injuries. Rather it’s the way the rider falls and what he/she hits. See page 14 of the report: http://www.righttoride.org.uk/documents/Effects of ABS on motorcycle crashes 25_03_17.pdf
Further evidence comes from Dr John Hinds Motorcycle Trauma Specialist in his presentation on the work carried out by his team at Irish road racing events where he demonstrates the type of injuries are dependent on the way in which the rider falls post-crash. What is evident in the following video is that the motorcyclists are all travelling at very high speeds and during the video, Dr Hinds highlights the importance of the way the rider falls and the possible outcome due to where the rider lands and which part of the body hits the ground or object first.
He comments that “the mechanism is important, speed isn’t”. He then continues to explain possible injury scenarios depending on the type of action the motorcycle may take. For example he explains what may happen when the motorcycle “High-sides” and he points that the crash is dependent on the height of the fall rather than the speed – which in the case of his presentation – the speeds are significantly higher than normal road riding e.g. 150 to 200 mph.
Video presentation: “More Cases from the Races”
Motorcycle crashes are not the same as car crashes because the rider is separated from the bike (see 2.30 minutes into the video).
In sum – it’s not speed – it’s the mechanism.
Elaine
The charts used in this argument are a bit misleading. While a police investigator of a crash might observe a wadded-up bike and conclude that speed was the primary reason for the crash, and while advanced training gurus will argue that low skill rather than high speed is the culprit, speed itself does have some danger issues.
First, higher speed means less time to deal with any hazard in view, And the faster the speed, the greater distance and time required to pull off an evasive maneuver. We humans are apparently not well equipped to comprehend how kinetic energy increases so much with increases in speed. For example, an experienced motorcycle driver might assume that he/she can stop the bike in 130 feet because the magazine braking tests say so. And if a bike can stop in 130 feet from 60 mph, then a skilled rider can stop from 120 mph in 260 feet, right? Stupidity #1: the magazine test braking distances don’t include reaction time. Real world stopping distance from 60 mph will be more like 200 feet, when reaction time has been included. Stupidity #2: thanks to kinetic energy, stopping distance from 120 mph will be maybe 800 feet for a highly skilled driver with good tires and clean, dry pavement. Dribble in a bit of spilled diesel, rainwater, or driver age over 60, and stopping distance could stretch out to 1,000 feet (no kidding!)
Stopping distance is important because (in the USA at least) the majority of motorcycle crashes involve the motorcycle slamming into something else, whether a turning truck (“lorry”) or a roadside tree.
When the situation does turn sour, then impact speed becomes critically important. Speed of impact determines life or death for whoever is flying through the air. If it’s a short drop and a long slide (as on the track) then chances of survival are good. If it’s a long drop and a short stop (say taking a dive over the top of a car and then sliding into a bridge abutment) a motorcyclist is very unlikely to survive.
Yes, I realize that many of today’s machines are seductive and tempting to drive fast, but let’s not be so quick to toss physics to the wind in the interests of justifying our need for speed (on public roads). The better environment for high speed recreation is a closed track, and I’m fine with teaching high speed skills there.