Local parish, town and community councillors recently met with the Isle of Wight Council’s Road Safety Officer, Lewis Campbell, in response to growing concerns about road safety on the Island and the high collision rates.
The Isle of Wight Association of Local Councils (IWALC) invited Lewis to their October meeting at the Newport Congregational Church.
Lewis gave a very useful overview of the topic, providing a summary of road traffic collision data. This revealed that in the last 5 years there has been a downward trend in the total number of collisions resulting in slight and serious injuries but not in the number in which there were fatalities.
Councillors were interested to know about the age breakdown of drivers. Apparently, young drivers (those aged 17-24) accounted for 27% of accidents. This compares with 29% for those over 60.
It was also interesting to learn that 42% of incidents were caused by the ‘fatal five’ driver errors (speeding, distraction, failure to use seat belts, alcohol/drugs and following too close), with 7.6% involving alcohol or drugs.
However, Lewis also warned about the interpretation of the data. For example, the main reason for the apparently high killed and seriously injured (KSI) rate is that rates are measured in terms of the number of collisions and casualties per billion vehicle miles travelled and the average number of miles travelled is much lower here than on the mainland. Furthermore, since the number of accidents here is relatively low, a small increase in numbers can appear to indicate a major increase in collision rates.
He went on to explain that road safety issues have to be addressed in 3 different but interrelated ways: engineering improvements, which are the responsibility of the Council and Island Roads; education of road users, which is the Council’s responsibility, and enforcement of regulations, which lies with the Police.
Lewis then answered members’ questions. The main concern was with ways of controlling speeding. Members were informed that the Isle of Wight Council is currently undertaking a speed review across the Island, the results of which will be brought to the Cabinet early next year.
So the other 71% are youngsters
Bembridge was rumoured to be made into a 20mph zone throughout , but most of the residents never achieve that speed now, so it was put on the back burner for now.
Speed etc on the Island is shocking, no one seems to care what happens on
the Islands Roads.
You have a weird concept of “youngster”.
27% were between 17 and 24
29% were over 60
So 44% were aged between 25 and 59
The famous quote is, ‘there are lies, damned lies and statistics’ which shouldn’t apply if they are properly, comprehensively and fairly applied, unlike this report.
27% of all accidents are attributed to the under 24’s, a mere 7 year age range, and 29% to the over 60’s, a much larger group.
Unless you adjust it to a driver per capita accident rate i.e. how many accidents that averages per driver in each age group it means absolutely nothing and the same also needs to be applied to the number of fatal accidents in each age range.
Which ?
Of course, means that 71% involve Drivers under 60 ?
Stats and Lies etc ! More important ? Would be more resources, for ALL Policing, incl Road Policing ? To remove the Dangerous Drivers ? 17 to 87 yrs of age ?
All that means is that over 60% of crashes involve people under 60
Interesting! So that means 71% are caused by those under the age of 60 then!!!!
So clearly by this younger drivers are far more likely to be involved in an accident. 27% but only less than 10% of population and even less have driving licence. Whereas 29% of over 60,35% of population and almost all have licence.
Anything is only fatal if it’s out of control
driving a car, alcoholism, heroin, the list goes on
Shouldn’t the headline really be…71% of all Isle of Wight crashes involved those UNDER 60!
Precisely Vectawall. As so many posters have pointed out, this is an example of malign and propagandist headlining. Don’t forget it’s the sub-editor who wrote the headline, not the Council. Why did he or she pick on that irrelevant extract from the report? Shame on you Island Echo. Are we to have an apology and an explanation of why that stat was chosen? As a former and long-time journo, I know how it works, and this is a disgraceful example.
I’m not sure how helpful the data for driver ages is. 17 – 24 years inclusive is a range of just 8 years. Over 60 could be as much as 40 or more years – five times as much. I know a 97 regular driver and even a 103 year old, both still driving apparently safely. If there is to be an analysis by age, it would also be helpful to know the severity of accidents by age groups. Clearly, there’s a world of difference between a minor damage only bump and an accident resulting in serious injury or even death. If over 60s are having a disproportionate number of accidents compared to 17 – 24s, why would insurance premiums for under 25s be so high compared to over 60s?
So 27% are aged between 17-24, 44% are aged between 25-59 and 29% are aged 60 and over. So much for the keyboard warriors blaming ‘the old’ every time there’s an accident. The worst idiots are the budding Lewis Hamilton’s. Passed my test at 18 and been driving 52 years without a blemish . I know many people of my age who are virtually the same.Many a time I’ve been driving at 30 in a 30 zone and had twats virtually up my bumper trying to push me to go faster with no success. Then overtake when road is clear and zoom off into the distance! Obviously breaking the law.
With hi tech cameras so clear, so cheap, so small with no need for film as all data can be recorded on solid state drives, then there is NO reason why hidden cameras cannot be installed on most all roads on lamposts and use wi-fi to send info of speeding cars etc and they would pay for themselves in days.
They would also save many many lives and accidents over years.
We need the courts however to jail anyone who is banned from driving or those deliberately driving drunk, drugged or dangerously.
Simple, so it won’t happen.
So many speed signs around the Island (the ones that show your speed,red if 35 and green if under for example) just place a camera facing these and road position of car and jobs done – video evidence?.
Almost right Freddie, but the cameras need to be a few hundred yards onwards from the warning signs.
Otherwise people do as they did with yellow speed cameras, they slow when passing then carry on as norm once out of view.
Random moveable cameras are all that would work, as sat nav etc tells the driver the site of any fixed cameras so most know when to brake for a few hundred yards.
The Island desperately requires CCTV
Deejay
So 71% are not over 60 then is that correct, or are you having trouble with older drivers.
And that means that 71% involve the under 60’s or in old money almost 3/4 .
Which shows that 71% of the under 60s are responsible for the rest.
Considering the percentage of old people and half cannot see where they are driving
it was lower than i expected.
To put it in perspective then 71% are caused by those under the age of 60!
It would be interesting to know what percentage of Island drivers are below 25 or over 60.
Interesting to know how many drivers are classed as in poverty, yet still run a car, still smoke dope, still drink, all because they have scattered children around which funds their lifestyle.
Hit the nail on the head Julie
Considering that half of the Island population is over 60, that’s not a bad average!
Statistics aside, what exactly do the council do to educate road users?
Least they could do is highlight accident blackspots and encourage people to take it easy in these areas. Seems like they get away with doing nothing a hell of lot.
And we’re paying them to discuss this ! What a load of ..
What is the % of the population of the Isle of Wight broken down into the over 60’, under 25 & the ages in between
According to iow.gov.uk 27.3% of the IW population is over 65.
I suspect 29% may well be over 60 so why the surprise at this statistic?
Headline, ” Parish and Town Councillors learn 71% of all Isle of Wight crashes involve those under 60″. Apparently,young drivers (those aged 17-24) accounted for 27% of accidents. The worst group were those aged between 24 and 60 representing 44%. Those over 60 who drove the least contributed only 29%.
Why don’t councillors care about Vehicles parking on Pavements!!
Great Preston Road in Ryde outside the Council Houses is a nightmare
“Persons living along this Road think they own the pavement”
When an Accident happens will IW Council be liable or the persons who are
Illegally parking on the pavement.
There are no Council houses in Great Preston Road.
32% of accidents are caused by people wearing jeans. Does this mean that jeans are dangerous?
Notice the report says the various percentage groups are involved in accidents – it doesn’t say they caused them.
higher collision rates due to many more drivers on the Island in the last 20yrs, this meeting was an oxymoron to begin with..are councillors that thick?
And the demographic of the isle of wight is ?
A totally meaningless figure unless it is quantified with more information
Probably one of the worst statistical reports I have ever had summarised, accidents per billion miles travelled,ok, you have to have a datum point for any analysis, is there a higher frequency of accidents during the holiday months when the population is larger, were the age groups determined by islanders or from the mainland, what time of the day do these accidents occur. If you are toprepare a report then all relevant factors must be used, not just cherry picking a few.
What it doesn’t say is what percentage of accidents were caused by people over 60 only the percentage of those involved in accidents.
Can I respectfully ask IslandEcho to explain the quite obvious slant against those over 60? By any stretch of the imagination you imply that over 60s cause more accidents than any other group, yet your published figures show otherwise. Perhaps this is an anomaly, perhaps a junior journo was allowed to publish an article that was not checked by a more senior and, dare I say, less biased editor? This does throw your reputation somewhat ‘under the bus ‘ and calls your editorial stance into question as you seem to be turning against a major demographic of the Island.
Surely it would be better to give the number of collisions etc. per number of journeys, rather than per billion miles.
Whats weirder id that all of you believe these made up statistics. Its FACT cos ie wrote it? Same dubious info as the covid statistics……nonsense more older n younger are the issue…FACT