I noticed that Transport Canada reports serious injuries and the trend, as with fatal injuries, is down ward for the past 2 decades This is good news, if the numbers are accurate.
Traffic fatalities in BC had been trending down ward to 2013, but the number of casualty injuries has been increasing.
The number of casualty injuries in BC is many time higher than the serious injuries reported for all of Canada.
How does ICBC or who ever is responsible for road safety in BC, determine if their accident prevention measures and polices/laws are effective at reducing accidents and injuries?
Transport Canada would seem to be the obvious source; the Feds are indeed keeping careful track of these things.
This is good news, if the numbers are accurate.
But bad news, if it contradicts your own fondly held beliefs?
You'll note that their most recent data - in common with ICBC - is from 2014. Let's take a look and see, here.
- Fatalities and Serious Injuries are indeed trending downward across the country; from 1995 at 2,818/162,014 to 2014 at 1,667/110,500 which is a remarkable decrease! We should be encouraged by the way things are going.
- The age group with the highest incidence of Fatalities is 65+ (contrary to what you may have read or in fact stated yourself elsewhere on this site) at 400 - almost double that for middle aged groups, and the 65+ category actually accounts for 21% of the Driver Fatalities.
- Amongst provinces, by population, Saskatchewan has the highest number of fatalities. PEI has the lowest. BC might be able to improve on it's 6.3 fatalities per 100,000 people (though this could be a challenge, given our topography and dangerous winter conditions), but we are safely ahead of not just Saskatchewan but also Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory, Alberta, and New Brunswick.
Traffic fatalities in BC had been trending down ward to 2013, but the number of casualty injuries has been increasing.
The number of casualty injuries in BC is many time higher than the serious injuries reported for all of Canada.
You have made various statements like these on this website, but you fail to support your data. Please explain. What does 'many time higher' actually mean? Would you please provide links to your sources of information.
How does ICBC or who ever is responsible for road safety in BC, determine if their accident prevention measures and polices/laws are effective at reducing accidents and injuries?
Good question! I'm no statistician, but I would guess that it takes time, literally. The longer the sampling, the easier to see the trends that are occurring. But even then, it's a real challenge to judge cause and effect. If a driver drives at excessive speed and has a high amount of alcohol in his system, then crashes the car, what is the reason for his consequent death? Incidentally, that driver wasn't wearing his seat-belt. Hmmm.
And government moves slowly. The speed limit increase on some sections of our highways (to 120 km/h) that took place less than two years ago was based on data acquired in 2002/2003! My guess is that our Ministry of Transportation will want to collect at least 5 year's worth of statistical information from those sections that were affected in order to be able to make a reasonable estimate of how the changes have - or have not - resulted in lower or higher fatality and serious injury rates. But even then - as the newly written Section 151.1 came into effect right at the same time - it would be my guess is that they'll find the fatality and injury rate will have decreased, due to the reduction in bunched up traffic all following too close and executing tight lane changes to get past the miscreants that we used to have to deal with.
Hope this helps!
- Log in to post comments
They responded to my Tweet about this with the following link:
ICBC's road improvement projects lead to 24 per cent reduction in severe crashes
- Log in to post comments
Good to keep in mind that these are more than statistics -these are people who being injured or killed,based on BC Government policy.
I believe that all accident are preventable, but realistically who could have predicted the Hope Slide of decades ago. Zero is unlikey to happen.Unachievable anywhere in the world-but a goal.Few ,if any are raising spred limits to get there.
Of course, health issue for older drivers are reason to suspend the priviledge of driving, but many younger driver and middle age,whatever that is, drivers who demonstrate that they have no respect for laws,or others, should also be off the road. How to do this -is the debate.
Yes- ICBC is investing in road improvements and the Auto Industry continues to make safer cars, but if the human factor is not adressied , more people than necessary will continue to be injured and die on BC roads.
Do you recall the movie "Cool Hand Luke"? -well, I think we have a failure to communicate-drivers following the speed limit are not the cause of the above average fatalty rate in BC- 9 people our of 100,000 drivers. One of them could be you, a friend or family member.
- Log in to post comments
Once the BC 2014 and 2015 stats are updated -it will be clear that the zero fatal injury goal is not moving in the right direction. The BC government has sent the wrong message to drivers by encouraging every driver to speed up. The only Province is this great country to do so.
Will it be an election issue-what could be more important than your family, friends who drive BC roads?
- Log in to post comments
I find the comment very interesting, that the idea to raise limits started in 2003, and it will take 5 years to evaluate the impact.
The number of fatal accdienst have decreased across the country, Thanks to safer automobiles and road improvements. BC is the only Province to raise speed limits as an accident prevention initiative.
How will the success of higher speeds in BC be assessed? Although fatals have been decreased, the number of casualty accidents has been increasing as have injuries. In a BC 2003 report, the collison injuries were 22,940. The ICBC number reported for 2013 that collision injuries were 85,000 with 54,00 casualties. So while fatals are down , injuries seem to have more than doubled in this period.
Why would any Govenment focus on increasing speed when injuries are allready trending upward.?
Will it really take 5 years to recognize this mistake?
- Log in to post comments
Why would any Govenment focus on increasing speed when injuries are allready trending upward.?
Perhaps because the deaths are trending downward, despite all the new cars and drivers on the road. Not to mention the more freely moving freeways.
Will it really take 5 years to recognize this mistake?
That '5 years' was - as I mentioned when I wrote it - merely 'my guess'. I don't think the speed increase was a mistake, neither does the government, so far.
And that there government you refer to is doing far more than just matching maximum speed limits in accordance with existing conditions, they're tackling a number of issues.
But with over half of the fatalities in Vancouver involving pedestrians, I get pretty disgusted when supposed safety prononents want the authorities to invest taxpayer money on speed cameras on the Malahat.
Raising the speed limit on 1,300 kilometers of highways in this province back in July 2014 was a carefully considered response to an existing situation that reflects how the vast majority of people drive on those highways. From what you've said, or implied, in other posts here it seems to me that raising the speed limit on the Malahat might be more effective in reducing crashes than some camera system that tickets vehicle owners, regardless of who was driving.
Why are pedestrian deaths so acceptable to you? They're not speeding, and I would be willing to bet that most of the collisions involving them had nothing to do with exceeding the speed limits on our highways.
These questions are obviously rhetorical, Phil. Because you, sir, deliberately ignore and fail to answer any challenging question on this forum that you can't or don't want to answer; your usual style is to jump into some unrelated topic (such as parking brake use, for instance) just so you can bang the same gong somewhere else on your pet subject.
- Log in to post comments
How do you make claims that deaths are trending downwards? BC ambulance calls increased 46% after the speed was raised in the first 3 months and the government hasn't posted stats yet, so how can you make that claim? Where are the 2015 stats to back that claim?
Of course the government "thinks" raising the speed limit was correct, but without proof it's only an experiment. And with the social media and cell phone epidemic on the rise I don't see where the logic comes from to raise the limit. It's proving deadly in the USA, raised speed limits and the electronic epidemic on the rise, in fact has raised the fatality rate & Injury rate in 2015 nation wide, despite safer built vehicles.
I sure would like to see where Phil said pedestrian deaths were acceptable to him.
- Log in to post comments
Yo, fellow adult conversationalist, and Class 1 Driver. I'll do my best to respond.
How do you make claims that deaths are trending downwards?
But I did provide proof, in this post right here, which I must assume you have read as you replied to it?
Where are the 2015 stats to back that claim?
No, we don't have the 2015 statistics yet - you know this as well as I - but the proof can be read on Page 3 of the pdf right here, and that latest available information supports my assertion that fatalities in BC decreased by a significant 19% over the preceding five years.
Unless and until they provide an update, all else is speculation. Like you, I look forward to seeing an update to this factual information; if the trend continues (which I believe will be the case, myself) then we will actually see a further reduction in the number of fatalities on BC roads. If not, then I'll be wrong in my estimate of where things are headed.
Of course the government "thinks" raising the speed limit was correct, but without proof it's only an experiment.
Yes, but surely a necessary experiment?
If it turns out - and I think it will - that allowing a 10 km/h increase on the appropriate sections of our finest highways corresponds to a decrease in the injury/fatality rate on those roads province, then the authorities are going to be vindicated - and forced to look elsewhere in their desire to reduce the overall carnage. That's how I see it.
It's a misallocation of resources if the government is using their policing power ineffectively.
Not for a moment do I argue against technology, where it's effective. Personally, I think that the Photo Radar vans used around 1993 (from memory) were deliberately set up on the sections of road where conditions would be most likely - as in, to support higher speed than the limit in order to keep up with traffic - to nab the greatest number of drivers, using common sense in how fast they were driving. That way, they could rake in the most revenue to help pay off the program; but in this democracy, the prospective government of the time realized that victimizing regular folks in such a manner wasn't the clever thing to do if they wanted to get elected.
I think that Red Light cameras are fantastic, wonderful, they should be installed at every Traffic Light controlled intersection. Not that I like the idea of 'Big Brother' surveillance by our government (I don't) or facelessly ticketing the vehicle owner instead of the driver (which really bugs me, as the driver doesn't receive Demerit Points that might lead to more fines and even license suspension or prohibition).
It's just that logically, rationally, a driver might choose - where conditions allow - to exceed the speed limit. I would speculate that the majority of drivers do this on a daily basis.
But no driver can logically, rationally, drive through a red light. Even emergency vehicles slow way down and make lots of flashing lights and noise if they need to do so!
I sure would like to see where Phil said pedestrian deaths were acceptable to him,
Phil hasn't said that.
He has deliberately ignored it as being a significant issue, though. In fact he's simply tried to use this site - designed to provide useful information to BC drivers about driving laws and safety - to drive his own agenda.
But, inasmuch as he had deliberately and intentionally ignored every challenge to his beliefs - and so, every response to his statements is made redundant by his inability or unwillingness to discuss them - I drew the conclusion (and stated it) that he didn't care about pedestrian deaths as a factor. This may not have been fair of me, but if it makes him back off and think a while about his assertions and personal agenda, then I think it will be beneficial to all of us.
I don't mean to be condescending, quite honestly. But I do think that adults should be able to support their arguments, and prepared to have them challenged - plus which, they must surely be prepared to admit when they're mistaken, or lacking in information.
- Log in to post comments
Using ICBC's stats, with a very significant raise in injuries, in 2012 Fatality crashes was 251, then 2013 was 245 then 2014 was 258. Those numbers prove a RISE in the Fatality rate.
Injuries in 2012 was 82,000 from a steady increase from previous years and it only shows to 2013 which was 85,000, again a huge Increase.
So how anyone claim the numbers are on a downward trend when the stats show they are on in fact on a Rising Trend is nothing more than false, and while these numbers are increasing to claim raising the speed limit is the correct thing to do? What? Really? And now the rest of the 2014 stats are being delayed big time and no sign of the 2015 stats, and as distracted driving passed DUI, I highly doubt those stats will show anything but a CONTINUED INCREASE in fatalities & Injuries, but time will tell, but even USA is on a huge fatality & Injury Increase, and that is with their 2015 stats.
- Log in to post comments
2012 Fatality crashes was 251, then 2013 was 245 then 2014 was 258. Those numbers prove a RISE in the Fatality rate.
In the period you selected, that's right. A marginal increase over that time frame.
But the time frame under discussion is 2010 thru 2014, per the reference chart on the ICBC site.
You know this.
That's why I can not only make the claim but verify it, that the fatality rate declined over that period.
- Log in to post comments
Another serious injury accident Friday morning, on the Malahat, at 8AM.. On March 19th, the RCMP IRU towed 23 vehicles for excessive speed on the morning commute.
There has not been an IRU campaign since March 19th.There would be no need for campaigns if drivers knew they would be paying for the priviledge of getting to work faster than the posted limit allowed. Speed monitoring technology would make a difference.
This is the debate that needs to take place in the BC Legislature.Raising speed limits without follow up, is way out of the line with the Goal of Zero Fatalities on BC Raods.
- Log in to post comments
Although I haven't seen them myself yet, just the story in the Province, where motor vehicle crashes are on the rise, (Imagine That) And Todd Stone is so far only lowering the speed limit Back Down on 2 of the hwy's. You will notice in the story it compares crash rates, but conveniently doesn't start until Nov 1st, after summer of 2014, and leaves out the first 3 1/2 months after raising the speed. But over all BC crashes are up, just as predicted with the trend on the rise.
So as in the USA, BC is not fairing much better, distracted driving which funny enough even Todd Stone acknowledged, is on the increase, but at the same time is leaving some of the speed increases in place for now. I'm guessing even more crashes & fatalities, injuries are needed to convince the government to lower the speeds & increase enforcement. To bad EGO must get in the way of peoples lives rather than just admitting now higher speeds were wrong, that's my opinion any ways, if distracted driving is increasing, how can faster be better?
I still want to see the stats for myself as the story claims crashes are up on 14 routes
- Log in to post comments
Still no update on ICBC stats , but reporter Tom Fletcher has an article on a BC analysis of raising speed limits based on 2014 -2015 data. It would be nice to see the actual ICBC data , but Mr. Fletcher states that collisions were up by 9%. No surprise that driving too fast for conditions is a leading cause of accidents in the report. Automated speed signs advertising penalties for speeding and then actually triggering a ticket for speeding would reduce accidents and injuries on BC roads. Why are British Columbians not insisting on this-safer roads? Nobody should be driving 40 plus over the posted limit, yet this continues to be a problem on the Malahat.
- Log in to post comments
BC Car crashes are up 11% on roads with speed limits raised and up 9% where speed limts were not raised, according to a Times Colonist article. It appears that BC drivers got the message from the Minister of Transportation and are driving faster on all BC roads. Driving faster and distracted is costing all BC drivers more to drive.
- Log in to post comments
At least according to the province's backgrounder on the subject. It appears that there are roads where the speed limit was increased and drivers actually drove slower than they did before the increase.
Even more to the point, here's the UBC report that the MOTI acted on.
- Log in to post comments
Where does it show the speed decreased? I personally see faults with the data they are showing they use, firstly while ambulance calls increased 46% in the first 3 months after speed was raised, the government has Not Included July 2014 to Oct 2014, the first 4 months after the speed was raised have No Crash Data, and as the Ambulance calls increased, I would logically think crashes must have increased as well.
Second major problem with this data is the government is showing very incomplete and totally false speed data of what actually happens on the hwy's. The over half a century old 85th%tile is just Insane to still use in 2016 for many reasons, even the theory behind it is flawed, ( The majority of drivers are reasonable & prudent) What a load of garbage, maybe back in 1964 but not in 2016, distracted driving on the increase alone proves that theory wrong. Then to measure the average speed they set up for only a certain length of time, and only count/measure the speed of a very limited amount of vehicles. They then take those numbers and say that's what the average speed "ALWAYS IS" Nothing could be farther from the truth.
With time over distance speed cameras, they could get very accurate data, and for 24/7, and over the entire hwy, not one single set point which is the other total flaw with the 85th%tile.
So to make claims of the speeds, Up or Down, is nothing more than a guess of what actually takes place, and as crashes are up it makes me wonder of the truth. Meanwhile the worldwide studies show increasing the speed increase crashes, Injuries & deaths, those are proven facts, and that is all while motor vehicles are being built safer than ever before.
But yes, lets wait for more data and leave the higher speeds in place while crashes increase, maybe it's just my logic that's flawed by using actual worldwide proven facts.
- Log in to post comments
Phil, have you read this article in today's Vancouver Sun? You probably should. Here's a highlight:
The data suggests 28 per cent of all crashes were primarily caused by distracted driving, while driving faster than the posted speed limit was a factor in only 2 per cent of the crashes.
- Log in to post comments
Where is the proof to back up those claims? And the broad comment that says " The data suggests 28 per cent of all crashes were primarily caused by distracted driving, while driving faster than the posted speed limit was a factor in only 2 per cent of the crashes."
What a one sided bias uneducated comment, on a 120 km/hr hwy a crash can occur at 80 km/hr in certain conditions that would make 80 km/hr speeding, and how is the conclusion drawn only 2% of the crashes happened over the posted limit? Did all the crashes happen only when conditions were Perfect? Because the fact is the posted speed is only for perfect/Ideal conditions, so the posted speed is irrelevant otherwise, just a comment to blind the public from the truth, typical politics, very sad to those that know better.
Then this comment,,, "The Coquihalla continues to see the lowest crash rate in the last 10 years, according to the province.",,,,,,,,,,,, Yet of the 12 deadliest Hwy's in BC, the Coquihalla ranks as the 3rd out of 12, sure seems to be a very misleading comment.
The bottom line and the Truth is out of 14 routes that speed limits were increased and crash rates Increased, only 2 of those routes are having the speed reduced, 12 are being left at the higher speed limit even though crashes have increased.
And like I said many times, distracted driving is a huge factor, so raising speed limits is Insane, the laws of physics cannot be changed.
- Log in to post comments
I forgot the other main point as to why the data is Flawed, From July to the end of October, (The whole first summers facts) have been deleted from the stats, BC Transport claims this as a transition period,,,,,, So in other words, what has taken place is the crash statistics have been Altered and do not show a true picture of the Facts.
So conveniently all the extra crashes fatalities & injuries that happened in the whole summer of 2014,don't even show up, making the data Flawed.
- Log in to post comments
I'm not surprised that they allowed a three-month period for drivers to adjust to the changes made, and for a couple of reasons.
For one thing, if I recall correctly, it was at about the same time that they brought in sterner lane-discipline rules (that made it clearly illegal to camp in the left lane), that they also bumped up the speed limits on sections of those highways.
But it surely makes far more sense to analyze over a 24 month period, which would then be compared to the comparative 24 month period that preceded the changes; I'm no expert on data analysis, but eliminating random factors such as sweeping changes to highway laws only makes sense if objectivity is the goal. Hence, the transition period, there has to be time for drivers to adjust to things.
So conveniently all the extra crashes fatalities & injuries that happened in the whole summer of 2014,don't even show up, making the data Flawed.
Conveniently? It's not a plot you know. Our government is not trying to kill everybody off.
In time, I'm sure we'll have more information to analyze that will give a fuller picture; but I think it's great to see that they're already working on highway improvements in many areas, as a follow up to this initial analytical info.
- Log in to post comments
They clearly made a mistake raising the limits, then left out a whole first 4 summer months of crash, death & injury data, and all the proof available shows it was a big increase in numbers, so yes conveniently. Crashes are up even without that extra data, how can an increase be anything but Bad?
They manipulate the numbers in doing so, make false claims with false data all while even acknowledging the world data clearly shows raising the speed limits increases crashes, deaths & injuries, yet they choose to risk more lives against the proof.
And you remember wrong, they revised the KRETP law and implemented it 11 months & 10 days after the raise of the speed limits from the existing slower traffic keep right.
- Log in to post comments
Well, I don't suppose you'll ever accept the idea of setting aside data through the transition period in order to obtain objective samplings (which is what they're attempting to achieve) but hey if you want to think that the Ministry of Transport deliberately and arrogantly is keeping monstrous death and injury numbers away from public scrutiny then be my guest. You should maybe submit an FOI request in order to discover the 100% Truth!
Frankly, I don't think that the BC Ambulance claim is verifiable; I've searched online for BCAS Stats that would provide this type of comparison, without success.
They manipulate the numbers in doing so, make false claims with false data all while even acknowledging the world data clearly shows raising the speed limits increases crashes, deaths & injuries, yet they choose to risk more lives against the proof.
Seems odd though that Germany, with an enviably low fatality rate compared to all but a very few countries, is known for it's many stretches of Autobahn that don't even have a speed limit. Kind of knocks your whole argument on its head.
Thanks for the info on the KRETP law, I was thinking that it came into play at the same time.
Going back to the beginning of your post:
They clearly made a mistake raising the limits
Clearly, huh? A favourite word of politicians, I've noticed.
Well, if it's as clear as you state, then you must have some powerful and inarguable numbers to show this cataclysmic association. Something that we would all agree meets the standard of this:
all the proof available shows it was a big increase in numbers
Please enlighten us with this information!
- Log in to post comments
The 4 months of data they aren't using has ZERO to do with as you suggest, I'm not surprised that they allowed a three-month period for drivers to adjust to the changes made,"
That doesn't even make sense if you actually think about, what's to get used too? Following the law is as easy as paying attention to the signs, not following what the signs say gets drivers tickets & the police aren't going to let you off a ticket because you tell them your not used to a sign, otherwise all long haul truckers could ignore the laws in every new town they drive too, or if on holidays and visiting new places there is no need to follow the law, after all these drivers haven't had 4 months to get used to all these new signs to them. See how your logic is illogical?
The excuse BC Transportation gave me was,,,,,,,,,,And I quote,,, " It took about 4 months to create speed zone records and get the signs installed at all the 33 segments."............... Which makes no sense if they were organized, they knew exactly what sections the speeds were being raised long before they raised the speed. It's just political double talk, crashes, Injuries & deaths still took place in the 4 months, and if changing the signs caused more crashes, well then drivers better never drive anywhere they are not familiar with, correct? That logic is pure Bunk and if it's not, they better set up construction zones 4 months ahead of any work starting so drivers can adjust to any changes made.
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for the UBC report. Unfortunately, the theoretcal results of this huge experiment have not resulted in improved road safety as predicted. Results so far, are an actual 9-11 % increases in crashes. The study would seem to be in question.There were others who did not support raisng speed limit to reduce accidents-- it seems that they are more credable.
Is it not time to review the focus on increased speed and study why crashes have increased and why BC is above the Canadian average for fatal car crashes?
- Log in to post comments
It would be progressive for Managers of BC road safety,whoever they are, to listen to credible Academics on the issue of highway speed.
Professor Trevor Hancock of UVIC states, in today Times Colonist , the same thing that the Minister of Transport says-distracted driving is the leading cause of road crashes.
However his view is opposite of the Minister of Transport and his "experts,"- on speed..The professor says "anything you do that distracts your driving ,if your are going faster will make it worse" .
As soon as ICBC updates the 2014 and 2015 statistics ,we will see that Professor Hancock has the picture.
What will it take to motivate the BC Government to get distracted and excessive speeding drivers off our roads?
- Log in to post comments
Read the Globe and Mail June 28th, 2016 article on the issue of speed limits and increased accident rates. The article seems unbiased and is very informative.
Police and Health officials opposed this increase in speeds They were right to do so, but apparently they were ignored.
Dr. Bonnie Henry, BC's Deputy Provincial Health Officer said she is very disheartened and concerned about the 11% increase in crashes.
Tarek Sayed, a professor of civil engineering at UBC said that the decison to increase highway speeds had a measurable impact.
How many more crashes, injuries and fatals before there is an end to this failed experiment?
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Hopefully, they use solid data such as this: