Top ten causes of road accidents in Britain

Convicted Driver Insurance

jimdavis

Banned
Using the latest accident statistics from the Department for Transport, here is a breakdown of the top 10 that occur in a year throughout Britain:
  1. Driver failed to look properly – 42,189 accidents reported
  2. Driver failed to judge other person’s path or speed – 21,211 accidents reported
  3. Driver was careless, reckless or in a hurry – 17,845 accidents reported
  4. Driver had poor turn or manoeuvre – 15,560 accidents reported
  5. Loss of control – 12,151 accidents reported
  6. Pedestrian failed to look properly – 8,687 accidents reported
  7. Slippery road surface – 7,327 accidents reported
  8. Driver was travelling too fast for conditions – 6,468 accidents reported
  9. Driver was following too close – 6,040 accidents reported
  10. Driver was exceeding speed limit – 5,102 accidents reported
The most common cause of accidents is driver error. Over 100,000 (108,479) crashes occurred in the UK due to cars suddenly braking, drivers failing to look properly, poor car manoeuvring and/or loss of control.

Interesting to note that despite drink driving incurring the most severe punishment, it doesn't appear in the top ten.
Also if you fail a random breath test you still get the severe punishment even if you haven't had an accident.
Therefore risking an accident is punished far more severely than actually having an accident.
Incompetent and careless drivers who don't drink, but cause accidents aren't subject to an automatic disqualification or a criminal record
despite them being the major cause of road accidents.
 
Difficult to take that as definitive though. Just because alcohol is not listed there, doesn't mean that it wasn't a joint factor in many of those listed...
 
SillySausage123 said:
Difficult to take that as definitive though. Just because alcohol is not listed there, doesn't mean that it wasn't a joint factor in many of those listed...
Click to expand...

This is correct. These stat's don't state if the driver had ANY level of alcohol in their system (presumably because if the level is below the legal maximum it is disregarded). A BA level of 50-80mg puts you around 2.5 times more likely to be involved in an accident than being at 0mg and 6 times more likely to be involved in a fatal. On this basis there is a strong argument to reduce the level further as Scotland did as I would be prepared to bet that a significant proportion of these drivers had been drinking, resulting in the lack of attention, carelessness and mis-placed over confidence in driving ability that results after consuming alcohol.
 
AlanT73 said:
This is correct. These stat's don't state if the driver had ANY level of alcohol in their system (presumably because if the level is below the legal maximum it is disregarded). A BA level of 50-80mg puts you around 2.5 times more likely to be involved in an accident than being at 0mg and 6 times more likely to be involved in a fatal. On this basis there is a strong argument to reduce the level further as Scotland did as I would be prepared to bet that a significant proportion of these drivers had been drinking, resulting in the lack of attention, carelessness and mis-placed over confidence in driving ability that results after consuming alcohol.
Click to expand...

The top ten are accident causes didn't involve alcohol, so you are wrong.
Accidents caused by impairment due to alcohol is 4,449 which is why it's not in the top ten.
Impairment will include accidents where alcohol was a factor even if the motorists were above or below the legal limit.
 
The difference between all the causes of accidents in the list and drink driving (and some of them are not even down to the driver) is that they involve a momentary lapse of judgement in what was otherwise a sensible drive. With drink driving there is an error of judgement or recklessness BEFORE the journey even started.
we are not going to go to a system where drink driving attracts a fixed penalty or 3 points on your licence. If we based the punishment on where in the “causes of an accident” chart it appears then causing death by dangerous driving would be even further down the scale!!!
 
jimdavis said:
The top ten are accident causes didn't involve alcohol, so you are wrong.
Accidents caused by impairment due to alcohol is 4,449 which is why it's not in the top ten.
Impairment will include accidents where alcohol was a factor even if the motorists were above or below the legal limit.
Click to expand...

Hi Jim. Can tell me what the criteria is (i.e. the blood alcohol level) for impairment due to alcohol in the 4,449 figure?
 
jimdavis said:
The top ten are accident causes didn't involve alcohol, so you are wrong.
Accidents caused by impairment due to alcohol is 4,449 which is why it's not in the top ten.
Impairment will include accidents where alcohol was a factor even if the motorists were above or below the legal limit.
Click to expand...
Jim, If you could provide the source of these figures, that would be great.
 
The figures only show details for accidents where the Police attended, and they do not take into account accidents where the driver then leaves the scene, which for drink driving is quite often! As I said before, drink driving is unique in that the risk is created before you drive, rather than a momentary lapse.
It is right that it is treated seriously as, despite the severe consequences for drivers prosecuted, it still causes over 200 deaths a year on U.K. roads.
 
jimdavis said:
The top ten are accident causes didn't involve alcohol, so you are wrong.
Accidents caused by impairment due to alcohol is 4,449 which is why it's not in the top ten.
Impairment will include accidents where alcohol was a factor even if the motorists were above or below the legal limit.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to find anything that confirms your assertion that no alcohol was involved. Any of the drivers in the 108,479 accidents could have consumed some level of alcohol. If they were breathalysed and registered below the legal limit, then no potential crime has been committed based upon alcohol consumption and as such it would not be recorded. The chances that all of these drivers blew 0 at the roadside? Zero. A significant will have blown between 1 and 35. This will have impacted their perception and reaction times.

From looking at this and your previous posts, I appreciate that you have an 'agenda' because of your own experiences with the UK drink drive laws.
Trying to paint drink drivers caught before causing an accident as some sort of persecuted minority who didn't do anything wrong is disingenuous.

When you set out in a vehicle knowing that you have consumed alcohol this is a pre-meditated act. You are taking a chance that if caught you will blow under, you are taking a chance that you won't be stopped at all. More importantly, you are taking a chance with other people's lives. You do not have the right to take that particular chance which is why the law is what it is.
 
Hi Alan,
I'm struggling to find anything that confirms your assumption that alcohol was involved.
I get the impression that you have an agenda that assumes that most or all road accidents involve alcohol.
You mention my previous posts that gives me the impression that you consider my 45 year accident free driving history
to not be good enough. What sort of 45 year driving history would you consider good enough?
Over the years I've been involved with a couple of crashes which weren't my fault.
Breath tests proved that myself or the other motorists had zero alcohol.
Regarding your comment regarding a pre-meditated act, motorists who drive with intention to use a mobile phone are taking a serious risk before they start their journey, but aren’t subject to an automatic disqualification or a criminal record.
I wonder why taking a serious pre-meditated risk of that nature doesn't attract the same punishment as failing a breath test.
 
Jim motor cars appeared on British roads in 1885, yet drink driving was not made illegal until 1967. Which is an 82 year time frame to make it illegal. Mobile phones are a product of the 1980's and will more than likely one day be a criminal offence to use in a car, but for now they aren't they are a road traffic offense.

45 years ago when you started driving, drink driving was illegal for 7 years at that point. You have always known that drink driving was illegal, choosing to ignore this is a criminal offence. This makes you a criminal. The same way that I am a criminal, Alan here's a criminal and nearly everyone who posts in this forum is a criminal.

From your post history and previous conversations we have had on this forum it's clear you have a chip on your shoulder about being considered a criminal. No amount of posting statistics that deflect from the issue of drink driving or talking about your clean driving record will take away from the fact you've knowingly commited a criminal offence, hence making you a criminal. If you feel so strongly about how other motor offences should be criminal offences then lobby your local MP.
 
grice96 said:
Jim motor cars appeared on British roads in 1885, yet drink driving was not made illegal until 1967. Which is an 82 year time frame to make it illegal. Mobile phones are a product of the 1980's and will more than likely one day be a criminal offence to use in a car, but for now they aren't they are a road traffic offense.

45 years ago when you started driving, drink driving was illegal for 7 years at that point. You have always known that drink driving was illegal, choosing to ignore this is a criminal offence. This makes you a criminal. The same way that I am a criminal, Alan here's a criminal and nearly everyone who posts in this forum is a criminal.

From your post history and previous conversations we have had on this forum it's clear you have a chip on your shoulder about being considered a criminal. No amount of posting statistics that deflect from the issue of drink driving or talking about your clean driving record will take away from the fact you've knowingly commited a criminal offence, hence making you a criminal. If you feel so strongly about how other motor offences should be criminal offences then lobby your local MP.
Click to expand...

Hi Grice,

Thanks for stating that I'm a criminal.
I've had reports back from the Police PND and PNC records stating that I don't have a criminal record.
Obviously you know different.
Please tell me from which data base you have obtained information to support your accusation that I'm a criminal.
I gave up lobbying my local MP on very serious issues other than drink driving because he ignored me.
His name is Jack Lopresti just in case you are wondering.
Being an MP has proved to me that he is as useful as a lump of cold sick.
 
Sorry for my f**k up there Jim, I've just realised I have mixed up you with another poster who keeps taking issue with the criminal element of the drink driving conviction. Just took a look in your post history and have realised that it is not you that I've had this out with before. My apologies.
 
jimdavis said:
Hi Alan,
I'm struggling to find anything that confirms your assumption that alcohol was involved.
I get the impression that you have an agenda that assumes that most or all road accidents involve alcohol.
You mention my previous posts that gives me the impression that you consider my 45 year accident free driving history
to not be good enough. What sort of 45 year driving history would you consider good enough?
Over the years I've been involved with a couple of crashes which weren't my fault.
Breath tests proved that myself or the other motorists had zero alcohol.
Regarding your comment regarding a pre-meditated act, motorists who drive with intention to use a mobile phone are taking a serious risk before they start their journey, but aren’t subject to an automatic disqualification or a criminal record.
I wonder why taking a serious pre-meditated risk of that nature doesn't attract the same punishment as failing a breath test.
Click to expand...

Hi Jim. I don't recall giving any impression that your driving history isn't 'good enough' (whatever that means) Do you mean 'good enough' not to receive a ban after being found in breach of the drink driving laws? Maybe some sort of brownie points that you acquire from a history of not having an accident? Unlike your relaxed, 'give me a chance guv' attitude, that's not how the system works.

Your mobile phone analogy is flawed. Simply having a phone with you does not constitute an offence. The offence is committed when you pick it up and use it. How ridiculous would it be to get stopped and because you have a phone in your door pocket be presumed to intend to use it?
When you consume alcohol and then drive the risk is posed immediately and exists for the entire journey.

I think Grice has hit the nail on the head when it comes to your continual protestations. The vast majority of people on here accept their punishment and take the advice of those in a similar position about how to get through their ban. You seem to be stuck in some sort of endless loop of self pity and bitterness that the system has somehow treated you unfairly. It hasn't. Move on.
 
grice96 said:
Sorry for my f**k up there Jim, I've just realised I have mixed up you with another poster who keeps taking issue with the criminal element of the drink driving conviction. Just took a look in your post history and have realised that it is not you that I've had this out with before. My apologies.
Click to expand...

Hi Grice and thanks for kind apology.
Please could you provide the user name of the member you mixed me up with.
I can check that persons postings to make sure what you say is correct.
Thanks. Jim.
 
jimdavis said:
Hi Grice and thanks for kind apology.
Please could you provide the user name of the member you mixed me up with.
I can check that persons postings to make sure what you say is correct.
Thanks. Jim.
Click to expand...

irony /ˈʌɪrəni/ - the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
 
OK second request to grice 96.
Please could you provide the user name of the member you mixed me up with.
I can check that persons postings to make sure what you say is correct.
Now if you can't provide the user name then please explain why.
I think I know why.
Thanks. Jim.

Reply
Report
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top