File talk:Killed on British Roads.png

It's a good start, but I am a bit concerned about the added comments. I don't want to get into another protracted to-and-fro discussion with you, so rather than editing it myself, I'll explain what I think needs changing in an attempt to improve its POV neutrality, and we can discuss it here first.

1. Can you add the table of source data here on the talk page, along with the reference used for it, so that others may verify the numbers if they so desire.
2. The title possibly needs clarifying as the data only covers Great Britain and not other "British" places.
3. The description states: "Chart shows significant changes to UK Speed limits, enforcement technology used and other events including". I would replace the word "significant" with "some" or "some of the significant" - so as not to imply that it is all significant changes.
4. You need to be careful with the POV aspect of added "significant events" as the implication is that they have influenced the fatality count.
5. You need to clarify what you mean by "Records first collected", because road fatality records go back to at least 1909 - when national accident records began, and STATS19 data collection only started in 1949.
6. It hasn't got the opening of the first motorway on it, that was the Preston Bypass, opened in 1958.
7. Why have you added just one government change and not all of them?
8. Significant events missing include:

• The introduction of driving tests (1935).
• The introduction of pedestrian crossings (1935).
• The invention of "cat's eyes" (1935).
• The Suez crisis which led to fuel shortages and a decrease in traffic (1956).
• Compulsory MOT test introduced (196x).
• Compulsory fitting of front seat belts (1967).
• Introduction of breath testing (1967).
• 50 mph speed limit and traffic reduction due to oil crisis (1973/4).
• Compulsory motorcycle helmet wearing law (1974).
• Compulsory high-density rear fog lamps (1978).
• Introduction of "20 mph zones" (1991).
• Introduction of speed cameras (1992).
• "Kill your speed" campaign started (1999).
• "Safety camera" pilot schemes started (2000). (actually 1999 - see discussion below PeterEastern (talk))
• National Safety Camera Programme started (2001).
• Hand-held mobile phone ban introduced (2003).
• National Safety Camera Programme ends(2007).

-- de Facto (talk). 09:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Lots of good input there. I will take a look at your points. This talk page should probably have a section to discuss what 'notable events' should and should not be on the graph. Clearly we can't put everything on and it would be silly to have nothing on it. I have added the source date below, however I can get the nowiki tag to work. Can you take a look? Do also check my transcription skills if you like! PeterEastern (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes I agree, we should discuss what to put on it. Perhaps nothing at first, then we can roll-back if we get bogged down in disagreement. Why did you put "New Labour" on it? Thanks for adding the raw data - I'll try the 'code' template on it. -- de Facto (talk). 14:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you have got the bones of a Traffic Road Safety in the United Kingdom article there ;) PeterEastern (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bones of something, yes. I wouldn't flatter them though by using the word "safety" in the title. ;-) -- de Facto (talk). 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And... SPECS average speed cameras were first used in 1999, see below. PeterEastern (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source data: ,Year,Killed,,,,,,,, ,2009,"2,222",rrcgb2009,,,,,,, ,2008,"2,538",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,2007,"2,946",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,2006,"3,172",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,2005,"3,201",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,2004,"3,221",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,2003,"3,508",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,2002,"3,431",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,2001,"3,450",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,2000,"3,409",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1999,"3,423",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1998,"3,421",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1997,"3,599",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1996,"3,598",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1995,"3,621",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1994,"3,650",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1993,"3,814",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1992,"4,229",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1991,"4,568",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1990,"5,217",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1989,"5,373",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1988,"5,052",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1987,"5,125",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1986,"5,385",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1985,"5,165",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1984,"5,599",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1983,"5,445",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1982,"5,937",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1981,"5,846",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1980,"5,953",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1975,"6,366",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1970,"7,499",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1966,"7,985",rrcgb2008 note ,,,,,,, ,1965,"7,952",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1960,"6,970",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1955,"5,526",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1950,"5,012",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1945,"5,256",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1941,"9,169",rrcgb2008 note ,,,,,,, ,1940,"8,609",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1935,"6,502",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1930,"7,305",rrcgb2008,,,,,,, ,1926,"4,886",rrcgb2008 note ,,,,,,,

• Department for Transport (2008). "Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: 2008 Annual Report" (PDF). Road Casualties Great Britain. Retrieved 2010-01-09. See table 2 and notes for table 2
• Department for Transport (2009). "Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: 2009 Annual Report" (PDF). Road Casualties Great Britain. Retrieved 2010-10-11. See table 2

I would like to see a band (similar to the WWII one) added to the graph showing the duration of the National Safety Camera Scheme/Self-Funding Safety Camera Partnerships. This started in 1999 and ended in April 2007. An arrow for the first speed camera (1992) should be added too. -- de Facto (talk). 15:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can talk about it, for sure. Not sure the speed camera scheme justifies a band, it was still hypothecation after that until this year when 40% of this year's fine income was 'raided' by the treasury ;) PeterEastern (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Safety Camera Scheme (camera fine income hypothecation scheme) ended on 31st March 2007. Since then the fine income has gone into central coffers (like the income from VED) and government road safety grants have been provided which the local authorities can spend on road safety how they wish - on cameras or whatever. This year those grants were heavily cut. Given that it was one of the most publicised, researched, advertisd, pushed and monitored schemes ever, resulting in the installation of several thousand speed cameras across the land, with claims of savings of 42% per year in KSIs, and given the controversey raised over the deactivation and/or removal of speed cameras following its demise; why on earth would you not want to add it? -- de Facto (talk). 20:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As per my note on your talk page, I am taking a break from editing this article with you. I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but I think we need to slow it down and reflect. PeterEastern (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have just updated the chart - see next section. To answer your point above, the direct hypothecation may have ended, but at least as much money was given for the same purpose from 2007. The change appears to have 'technical' in nature in response to the legal challenge dating back to 2001. The 'demise' of fixed speed cameras you refer mat not be as significant as you hope and is outside the time-frame for this chart anyway. PeterEastern (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dates on the graph for cameras are wrong. The Gatso was Type Approved in 1989 but the first one was not installed until 1992. The first LTI 20.20 'Laser Gun' was not Type Approved until October 1993. This makes the graph quite misleading as the Speed Camera era, when they were deployed in numbers, really started from about 1994/5, and coincides with the flat section with little improvement in safety, from 1995 to 2007, at which point the financial link was broken and ticket numbers fell dramatically. Please update your graph. Mike163 (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Happy to update the chart but can you first provide a reference for these claims. I would like to get to the point where every mark on the chart has a reference in the description text for verification. I agree with you about the date for the speed camera being 1992. Here is my reference for 'laser guns' from The Times "By the late 1980s, however, technology had been supplying the traffic police with new tools. Laser guns enabled them to measure the speed of a vehicle more precisely."[1] PeterEastern (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Home Office lists the Approval notices here [2]. I got the Gatso BV Type 24 wrong, that was not approved till 1992. I've seen 1989 somewhere, maybe prescribed then in the SI. LTI 20.20 TS/M was 1993, both p1 of the index. p.s. what email address is used by Wiki to inform me of page updates? I don't get any. Thx. Mike163 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you appear to know more about this stuff than I do. Any idea which document has the relevant details? Re email alerts, I am not aware that that is possible. What you need to do is add the page to your watch list and then from time to time display it. To add something to a watch list you click the big star to the right of the history tab for the article of interest to you. To see your watchlist you click on watchlist at the top of the page on the right. To remove an article you click it again. PeterEastern (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I wrote a response but guess I hit preview not save. The Gatso approval is here [3] and the LTI 20.20 TS/M approval is here [4]. Mike163 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however we are well short of clarity on the matter. I am still not clear if the Gatso you refer to was the first such device or that the LTI 20.20 was to first laser gun, certainly not enough to overrule The Times. I note that that article gives a date of 1991 for the first use of a speed camera. I also note that in the states they were using radar speed detectors back in the 1950s[5] Can I suggest that we work on getting Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom to our satisfaction first and then reflect those changes here. PeterEastern (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Times? What no! Telegraph, case proven :p I see the uncertainty. Hand held radar devices were around and even approved in the UK from 1986. However, these corroborated the evidence of a Police Officer. The legislation to allow unattended use was not brought in till 1991: section 20 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 was ammended by s23 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. After the legislation allowed unattended use, the type of devices had to be prescribed by Parliament. This occurred in SI 1992/1209 [6]. Then the device had to be Type Approved by the Secretary of State. This occurred in 1992, as per my link. The same process occurred for laser speedmeters, with approval of the first device in 1993. The original page to which I linked [7]has an index page of approved devices with nothing earlier than 1992. I'd link to think that UK Legislation is better proof than a newspaper article. Mike163 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new section heading for this thread of 'Please correct speed camera labels'. I have also copied the content of this new section to a new 'key speed camera dates' section on Talk:Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom. Please can we now continue nailing down the details relating to speed cameras on that page and then revert to this article when we are clear on the facts and update the chart. PeterEastern (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Are you sure that it is lack of clarity on the facts rather than just facts that you don't like? Legislation passed by the UK Parliament, Type Approval orders signed by the Secretary of State agreeing to the use of that particular equipment in 1992/3 respectively, on the Home Office website. Not just one item, but multiple. Primary legislation amended to permit the use of evidence from these devices in 1991, on OPSI. Against this you put one article from a book surmised by a daily paper. Do you have any other sources? Mike163 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I have put a considerable amount of work into a large number of transport and road safety articles over the past 2 years. You have challenged one fact on one article and I have responded to you questions in more detail on Talk:Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom as I mentioned above as this is the source article for the facts represented here. I am leaving another update on that page following work I have done today on various related articles prompted by your comment. You clearly have considerable knowledge on the subject and I for one would welcome contributions to the relevant articles. I will indeed update this chart when the facts are clearly available in the related articles. PeterEastern (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other events and initiatives which have contributed in a major way to fatality reduction, and which need to be included, if anything is, include:

• Improvements in motor vehicle primary safety performance (crash avoidence ability).
• Improvements in motor vehicle secondary safety performance (crash survival ability).
• Improvements in medical technology and care.
• Improvements in road-side response times and functions at the scene of crashes.
• Improvements in road engineering.

-- de Facto (talk). 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also

• Better identification of untaxed and uninsured cars by police using automatic number plate recognition
• Less young adults with driving licenses, possibly due to large increases in insurance cost, possibly related to insurance companies now having to pay for hospital costs .
• Increased traffic congestion in many places leading to lower speed?(or does that increase risk?)
• Less children being allowed to walk

However... other events and initiatives have increased the risk. These may include

• Widespread ownership and use of mobile phones while driving, more recently texting and mobile internet. Regulations to restrict some forms of usage
• More older people driving?
• Other in-cab distractions, such as transistor radios back in the 1970s/1980s?
• Increased miles driven - or is that a benefit due to congestion - see above.
• More people cycling in many urban areas, or does that decrease risk due to reaching 'critical mass'

However... how does one express most of that on a chart. In the end most of it can only be in the accompanying narrative.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your last point hits the nail on the head. It's probably better to leave the graph uncommented, beause, unless you add everything, with due weight, it is bound to be non-neutral and controversial. All the other items and discussion surrounding them could become part of the new article on UK road and traffic safety. BTW, why did you add "New Labour" to it? -- de Facto (talk). 09:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - I think key markers are relevant and useful and can be finessed. Surely it is notable that the fatality rate went down after speed limits were abolished in 1930 (which is counter intuitive to some) and then also went down after all the interventions in 1967 which included the creation of the 70 and 60mph speed limits. I will add addition events from your first list (especially the other interventions in 1967) where practical from a layout perspective with a view to improving the chart from a NPOV perspective. If you have any particular ones you would like included then let me know on this page and I will then see what I can do. PeterEastern (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The speed limit changes are only relevent if there is a reliably sourced causal link claimed. You must not lead the reader to false conclusions based on coincidence. The drop in the 1960s is probably due to improved vehicle technology, seat belts, new alcohol laws and people (especially children) staying off the streets. As we have seen, unenforced speed limits have negligible effect.

My preference is to leave them all off, and put the speculation and varying POVs in the accompanying articles.

-- de Facto (talk). 11:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I suggest we need moderation on this article as well! Other readers may which to check out the other issues we are discussing. Let's just wait. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the vehicle engineering features which have very likely had a huge impact on fatality numbers, we need, if we are to stick a chance of becoming NPOV with this chart, to include: ABS, air bags, air curtains, collapsible steering columns, crumple zones, disc brakes, emergency brake assist, head restraints, high level brake lights, hydraulic brakes, inertia-reel set-belts, laminated windscreens, radial ply tyres, safety cells, safety glass, seat belts, side impact protection, side impact protection, three-point seat-belts, traction control. The dates will need a bit of researching though. On the other hand, we could remove the sub-set of possibly influential measures already added and leave discussion of what may have influenced the numbers to the specific accompanying articles.

-- de Facto (talk). 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the chart to include most of the legislative changes identified in the discussion in the previous sections. PeterEastern (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've gone for the "cover everything which may have impacted the fatality count", rather than leaving them all off and allowing for balanced discussion in the appropriate articles. In which case you've got a lot still to add before NPOV is achieved. What is the point of the government colour line? -- de Facto (talk). 09:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting you to be impressed;) Personally I think your views regarding the non-relationship between speed limits / speed limit enforcement and the reduction of road casualties classifies as a fringe theory which is defined as ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. I say that because, as you know, the World Health organisation, the AA, the DfT all say that they are related. Fyi, I am going to remove the 'kill your speed' entry - I meant to remove it before as it is not legislation and therefore creates inconsistency. I will add the rear-fog lights entry to capture all of your original list. The reason to include the political party in government is because laws are made by the government of the day and the issue seems to be to an extent party political. PeterEastern (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse traffic speeds with speed limits, and don't confuse speed limits alone with enforced speed limits. We know from the evidence that on their own, lowering speed limits has little impact on traffic speeds and may even increase them (a few cases are described in the road speed limits in the United Kingdom article). That isn't a fringe view, it well understood - that's why speed cameras, traffic calming, and so forth are used - to attempt to slow the traffic. If speed limits alone have little effect on reducing traffic speeds then they also have little effect on the number of fatalities. Even if speed limits alone did have an effect, they would have to be reduced a bit each year to produce a downward trend in fatalities - a one-off change (such as the 1965 70 mph limit) would only produce a change between the 1965 and 1966 casualties - how could it also cause year-on-year reductions for subsequent years?

What isn't disputed is that lower traffic speeds tend to result in less serious injuries following a crash. What also isn't disputed is that better roads and better vehicle primary safety make crashes less likely at any speed, and that better medical care and better vehicle secondary safety make crashes more survivable at any speed. What is disputed is which of the multitude of candidate measures have led to the trend changes in the fatalities graph. Year-on-year fatality changes imply year-on-year changes in the things that cause (or the things that prevent) the fatalities. We know that car safety is continuously improving and that medical technology is continuously improving. However, we also know that country-wide speed limits do not change very often. So it seems more likely that the almost continuous year-on-year downward trend that we have seen since 1966 is caused by something or things other than the imposition of the 70 mph speed limit (which has never been widely enforced anyway) in 1965. For those reasons alone the graph remains certainly non-NPOV and possibly OR too.

-- de Facto (talk). 15:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to include some example vehicle safety legislation, for example airbags, radial tires, crumple zones if you provide suggestions and years. That would be good. Don't forget that the car stock takes 10 years to be replaced seat belts, airbags, rear fog-lights etc came in over that period. Do also consider that there are slower social trends at work which would also explain gradual decreases. For example with drink/driving the phrase 'have one for the road' only slowly disappeared as it became less and less acceptable to drive and drive. Similarly with seat belt use, talking on hand-held mobile phones etc. PeterEastern (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Vehicle safety changes (and those in road engineering and medical technology) have an increasing effect over many years as they permeate into the system. National speed limit changes (even if they actually had an effect) would only have a one-off effect between the year before and year after results, but not an incremental effect over many years. Having speed limit changes on the graph implies that they somehow have an effect on the casualty numbers - which isn't supported.

-- de Facto (talk). 17:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until you demonstrate that this is the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field then it must be treated as WP:Fringe. We have already discussed this at length on talk:Speed limit and you didn't convince the majority there, so please don't repeat the conversation here. PeterEastern (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The prevailing view is presented in the 'Effectiveness' section of the Speed limit article: "...there is limited evidence to suggest that speed limits have a positive effect on a system wide basis". The same message appears in the UK specific article: "Research in 1998 showed that 20 mph (32 km/h) speed limits were not effective at reducing traffic speeds...", "Local authorities recognise that speed limits on their own do not necessarily reduce traffic speeds...". Also following the introduction of the 70 mph limit: "Cheshire police reported that radar speed checks on the Cheshire section of the M6 suggested that cars were being driven about 10 mph (16 km/h) faster (but usually below the new limit)...".

-- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop playing games! Try reading the whole 'Effectiveness' section again and don't just cherry pick one comment from a 12 year old report published in the USA! PeterEastern (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is too serious a point to misrepresent the picture. I mentioned, not just the one report from the U.S. (which was actually a U.S. government review of all the appropriate safety research available at the time related to speed and speed management), but also several reports from the UK too. -- de Facto (talk). 16:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the chart again as follows: Removed 'kill your speed'. Added 'compulsory rear fog-lights' and also 'first average speed camera in Scotland'. I would prefer 'first average speed camera in GB' but haven't been able to find a source yet. Can anyone help? I have also added attribution and license details. PeterEastern (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPECS average speed cameras started appearing in 1999 - the same year that Safety Camera Partnerships started (not 2000 as I said above and not 2001/2 as currently shown). The The National Safety Camera Scheme ended on 31st March 2007 and marked the start of their decline - it should be added to the chart if the first one in 1992, which marked the start of their uptake, is staying on there. -- de Facto (talk). 17:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I have updated the chart again with the correct date for the National Safety Camera scheme and added the first average speed camera use in 1999. Please find reliable evidence that since 2007 the number of tickets issued for speeding have significantly reduced - probably a good indicator of your suggested 'decline'. Has fine income reduced since then? PeterEastern (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That speed camera convictions have declined since the scheme was abandoned in March 2007 is mentioned in the Safety Camera Partnership article, with a reliable reference: "During 2007 a total of 1.26 million fixed penalties were issued, which was down 23% from the previous year". -- de Facto (talk). 15:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, and how about 2008 and 2009? figures? 23% is a fall, but was it a one off? It is still a big number. What was it before the Speed Camera Partnerships?PeterEastern (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speed camera convictions (thousands) in England and Wales from Home Office figures p 51, table 3e:

2000: 599, 2001: 878, 2002: 1,135, 2003: 1,670, 2004: 1,787, 2005: 1,764, 2006: 1,752, 2007: 1,369, 2008: 1,127.

-- de Facto (talk). 23:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So there were still were nearly twice as many tickets issued in 2008 as in 2000 and we still don't know what the 'pre-partnership' baseline was. PeterEastern (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the decline in camera use following the end of the scheme, as I described it. Will you now please add that the scheme ended in April 2007. -- de Facto (talk). 23:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and added Road Safety Grants which came in at the same time. PeterEastern (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things not quite right in the data presented for 1966:

1. The graph incorrectly shows the 70 mph speed limit as coming into effect after the 1966 peak in fatalities. In fact, the 70 mph speed limit came into effect in December 1965, so actualy 1-year before 1966 ended - it was in effect for the whole of 1966.
2. The 60 mph speed limit didn't start at the same time as the 70 mph limit in 1965, it came into effect on 1st June 1977.

-- de Facto (talk). 16:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you would be good enough to add the dates for these changes you refer to the list you produced in the earlier section. Regarding the 60mph limit I was basing it on this phrase from the main article "In July 1967 Mrs Castle announced that 70 mph (110 km/h) was to become the permanent maximum speed limit for all roads and motorways and that some sections may be further limited to 60 mph (97 km/h)." When you are happy with the table I will play with the layout to make it work graphically. PeterEastern (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "may be further limited to 60 mph" never happened under Mrs Castle. -- de Facto (talk). 23:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the chart with corrections to dates for the 60 and 70 mph limits. Is that ok now? I have the tick for 70mph in the 1966 spot because it happened at the end of 1965. Are you saying that is wrong? If so then I think they may all be slightly out. PeterEastern (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the chart gives the impression that fatalities started dropping at the same time as the 70 mph limit was introduced, when in fact they didn't. The 1966 fatality figure applies to the whole of 1966 - so was the result after one complete year of the 70 mph limit. You need either to apply the years fatality figures to the end of each year (not the start as currently) or apply all the interventions which occured during a year to the begining of the year to avoid misleading the reader or - my preference - remove all the intervetion details and leave them to discussion in the appropriate articles. -- de Facto (talk). 07:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the 70mph line as requested. I have also added EuroNCAP. Although this isn't legislation it seems close to being so and adds more emphasis that vehicle improvements have are relevant. PeterEastern (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If we are to have EuroNCAP on there, its article says it started in 1997 though, not 1998 as currently shown. -- de Facto (talk). 07:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? If not then I will update the image as requested and we can then put it to bed! PeterEastern (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more on the 1965/6 anomalies, but see my earlier comment here for vehicle engineering innovations which need to be added. -- de Facto (talk). 10:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Give me some suggestions then. I won't make any further changes to the chart until you tell me what you would like there. This chart is for legislation, lets not load it up with technical innovations. We can have a separate chart for that. PeterEastern (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chart cannot possibly achieve an NPOV if you include legislation but exclude vehicle engineering and road engineering as likely causal factors in changes in fatality trends. -- de Facto (talk). 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. you tell me what you would like on there and I will see if it will fit. If not then I suggest that a separate 'engineering' chart would be appropriate. Looking at airbags though, they were introduced over a long period of time. possibly that needs a 10%-90% bar showing how it arrived across the models. Tell you what. You get some figures together and I will take a look at them.PeterEastern (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will find much of it in the automobile safety article. If space runs out, and if you still think that adding the measures to the graph is a better idea than having a simple fatality trend graph, and then discussing likely causes in appropriate articles, then I think that you should consider splitting it into years and keeping each graph NPOV, rather than having several non-NPOV graphs. -- de Facto (talk). 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the original editor is currently able and apparently willing (but for how long ;-) ) to maintain the graph, I am a bit concerned about how this can be sustainable. Currently the "master" document is (presumably) in a proprietary binary file type, and held outside of Wikipedia, and editing is done (presumably) using an application such as MS Excel, and the resultant chart exported to a raster image file which is then uploaded to Wikipedia. A better option might be to use a neutral or open text file format for the master which can be stored in Wiki, thus allowing any editor to pick it up and make changes (as for 'normal' Wiki text articles). The Wiki "how to" provides a guide to doing just this at Wikipedia:How to create graphs for Wikipedia articles, which also describes where best (commons) and in what format (svg as per templae added recently) to store them. Any comments about going down this route? It could lead to the creation of many interesting and revealing graphs using other data too! -- de Facto (talk). 10:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we have found it very painful producing SVG and I opted of a raster this time. I am sure that the SVG tools are getting better. I am using Mac Numbers and Mac Keynote if that is any help to any one. I will check them in about six months. Until then I don't intend to keep fiddling with the chart. I will however keep it on my watch list and respond to serious issues. PeterEastern (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a variant on this that relates the accident figures to the total (well, estimated total) annual mileage? As in per-million-kilometres or whatever?

There may be less accidents on the whole, say, 5 years after a speed limit introduction rather than 5 years before, but if total passenger distance has fallen by a similar amount in that time, then a typical journey of the same length hasn't actually gotten any more or less safe. 193.63.174.11 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Others are welcome to attempt such a thing, I am not don't another one. Fyi I chose 'killed' because the the figures for fatalities are more robust over time, wider casualty figures are much harder to tie down and keep consistent over many years. PeterEastern (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no evidence in the current graph that speed limits effect casualties. Don't assume that apparent correlations are in any way connected to each other. A once-off speed limit change one could at the very best produce a once-off casualty drop that year, but as the speed limits are not then dropped each consecutive year, then the any yearly casualty drops after a speed limit introduction year are obviously not related. -- de Facto (talk). 16:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this chart contraves the WP:OR policy. The association of the specific labels included, with the rate of change of road deaths, is not supported by a reliable source. I don't think that it is appropriate to include it in any articles in its current state. -- de Facto (talk). 16:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved our earlier discussion on Talk:Reported Road Casualties Great Britain to the following section on this page to avoid having the same discussion in two places. I suggest that we continue this discussion below and continue from where we had got to. PeterEastern (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the chart because of the labels on it which are pure WP:OR. There is no reliable source supporting their association with the subject of the chart, and the ones present are given WP:Undue weight in relation to the ones which are missing. -- de Facto (talk). 06:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, we have had numerous disputes on road safety related subjects where your views as to what is original research has differed from that of the majority of other editors. By way of example, there were the long discussion relating to speed limits starting with Notability of road casualty statistics, continuing over a number of sections including DeFacto's new sentence in lead - speed limits ineffective, POV in the lead and finally coming to a head with DeFacto's "So-called 20 mph zones".

It is clear to me from those discussions that you have firm views on the subject of road safety that are not universally shared. As such, I am going to reinstate the chart (which has been on the article for a year) and ask that you put your proposal for its removal onto the No original research noticeboard for 3rd party comments if you still feel it should be removed. I will respect the outcome of that process.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, how bizarre - you think that we should have a chart full of OR in the article because of your wild guess as to what my views on the subject of road safety are! My views on road safety are irrelevant - as are yours. All that is relevant is that we avoid OR in the article. That means providing reliable sources for all added material, including that in charts. When you can provide a reliable source supporting the inclusion of some events (the ones that you have decided to include on the chart) and the exclusion of others (the ones that you have decided to exclude from the chart) in association with road death numbers, then we can start considering whether it is NPOV and whether it should be included in the article. Until then it should not be included. This chart has been used in other articles, so let's take the discussion to File talk:Killed on British Roads.png#Original research. -- de Facto (talk). 16:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, are you unwilling to raise this on No original research noticeboard? PeterEastern (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping it wouldn't come to that - can't you see my point now? If you can't, feel free to escalate it. -- de Facto (talk). 18:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued with you extensively in the past and have observed numerous edit-wars that you have had with others over the past two year, particularly on motoring related issues where you often seem to be pushing what I (and many others) consider to be fringe views. I would remind you of the following comments left on your talk page:

• There is a very clear pattern of disruption and POV-pushing emerging here. You have engaged in edit-warring with lots of editors across a wide range of articles, in every case pushing a pro-car POV. I note in addition Motor vehicle emissions. You should reconsider your approach to editing Wikipedia.JQ (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC) [8][reply]
• As the talk page shows, User:DeFacto has a long history of disruptive editing, POV-pushing and so on. Rather than accuse others, you might want to reconsider your own approach to editing. JQ (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, I have reinstated this chart in various articles where it has been used and have adjusted the captions to clarify what it is saying and what it is not saying. I suggest that we take that approach rather than you deciding that the piece is OR and removing it. If you believe it is OR the please put it on the noticeboard.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, are you trying to avoid the issue of the OR and NPOV in this chart by raking up disputes and disgraceful misresresentations over other issues, as if they are relevant here? You appear to be, and that is unacceptable behaviour - see WP:CIVILITY. Please concentrate on the issues here - defend the reintatement of the charts, and defend the charge that the labels on the chart are OR and should be removed. -- de Facto (talk). 19:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was only drawing attention to other disputes we have been involved in and that you are involved in with others to demonstrate to you, and also to others who may not be aware of our history, as to why I am asking for this issue to be reviewed by a 3rd party and why I am certainly not going to get drawn into a direct debate with you on the subject. I am still asking you to put this issue forward for 3rd party review if you have issues with it. Why won't you do that? Can you not see my reasons for my request? PeterEastern (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no argument against removing the labels then. Should we take that as agreement to get rid of them? Don't you actually need a dispute before considering escalating it? -- de Facto (talk). 09:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had already made it clear that I believe the image to be fine as it is, particularly now that the captions have been clarified where it is being used. As I have said on every occasion you have raised this issue so far - if you have a problem with the image as it is then please raise it on the No original research noticeboard. PeterEastern (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't justified why you believe that those labels - unsupported by RS - are acceptable on there, you put them there and refuse to remove them, please explain why. I've explained why I think that they should be removed. -- de Facto (talk). 10:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, are you now shifting from an objection based our view that any relationship between the road casualties and road safety legislation is Original Research to one where you objection is based on lack of citations (ie unsupported RS)? If so I feel that you are giving me the runaround. Please let us deal with your OR objection first and then come back to any RS objections you may have. For the record however, can you please list the claims made on the chart which you believe to be incorrect? I believe all of these have been taken from claims which are well cited claims in other appropriate Wikipedia articles (for example Road speed limits in the United Kingdom and Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom). PeterEastern (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues with the chart. Some of them relate to its content as a stand-alone chart and some of them relate to its appropriateness and relevance in articles to which it has been added. Here I'll deal with the problems as a stand-alone chart, the problems with its use in the articles should be discussed on the talkpages of those articles.

The basic chart is good, except perhaps for the title which doesn't mention that it is by year. The problem is with the added labels of certain "events" that you describe as "related legislation" (some of which isn't legislation at all). As you should know by now, assertions of fact need to be verifiable from reliable sources. Assertions for which no reference has been provided, including the synthesis of an unreferenced conclusion arrived at by pulling together data from more than one source, is characterised as original research.

So let's examine those labels. The x-axis is multi-coloured, presumably to represent the colours of the governments of the day, but there is no explanation as to the significance of these. "WW2" is also on there, but again with no explanation. Then there is the collection of random items of traffic law, government initiatives and vehicle testing schemes, etc. The implication is that they are somehow related to the road death trend depicted on the graph, but again there is no explanation and no references. Let's look at one in particular: "30 mph speed limit", with an arrow pointing at the graph at about 1935, at a point where the trend takes a dramatic turn for the worst. There is no context given for the labal, or reference. Was the speed limit abolished or introduced, or what at that point? Was it an increase or decrease in speed limit? Was it on rural, residential or all roads? Were there studies of its impact on road speeds? Were there studies of its impact on road deaths that might make the event relevant to the chart? The reader might assume that it lead to the sharp reversal of trend in the graph at that point - did it? The same confusion and lack of encycloepedic information applies to most of the other labels too. What is the basis for inclusion of some events and the exclusion of others?

In conclusion, what we need, at the very least, is:

Either removal of the labels,

Or

1. Support for why the included events have been selected from all the events that may have influenced the graph trend.
2. A supported indication of what the influence of the included events is claimed to be.

-- de Facto (talk). 18:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#File:Killed on British Roads.png. -- de Facto (talk). 09:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well nothing very conclusive has come out of that excercise (yet). Of the two others who contributed one seemed to be rather ambivalent, the other thought the content violated WP:SYNTH. Are there any suggestions as to how we can progress this further? -- de Facto (talk). 18:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have suddenly taken a major dislike to File talk:Killed on British Roads.png. First you removed it from all the articles it was used in (Reported Road Casualties Great Britain, Road speed limits in the United Kingdom and Roads in the United Kingdom). You then demanded that I prove that it was not based on Original Research but refused to refer it on the No original research noticeboard despite repeated requests from myself. Now you appear to have shifted to objecting on the bases that the claims on the chart are not cited and are again wanting to remove it again from Road speed limits in the United Kingdom. Fyi, newer contributors might be intimidated by this sudden and insistent set of challenges. Lets deal with the OR issue first, then the RS claims and only then discuss it on individual articles.PeterEastern (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look further up this talk page you'll see it wasn't sudden. You'll also see that we've waited several months to see if these issues will be resolved - but they haven't been. In the absence of any logical support for the labels on the chart, it's time to get rid of them. The basis for removal is that without reliable sources associating these labels in particular to road death trends, that they must be considered as original research. By that I mean that the author has decided, without support from a source associating them, which events are associated and which events aren't - a pure synthesis of the events. -- de Facto (talk). 13:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly not forgotten about your 'Repeated removal of road casualty data from Speed limit article' as discussed above on this page in a section with that title. That discussion took place about a year ago almost to the day. I also note that you received this advise at the time: There is a very clear pattern of disruption and POV-pushing emerging here. You have engaged in edit-warring with lots of editors across a wide range of articles, in every case pushing a pro-car POV. I note in addition Motor vehicle emissions. You should reconsider your approach to editing Wikipedia.JQ (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC). A suggest that this is still the case. As such I will not discuss it with you and require you to put it to 3rd party. Your refusal to do so is why I have transferred to discussion to you talk page. PeterEastern (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated attempts to smear my views and misrepresentation of the situation by the quoting of a cherry-picked and out-of-context comment from an uninvolved editor does your case no favours. Please stick to defending (I assume you believe it can be defended) your insistence of keeping the unsupported content in the chart. -- de Facto (talk). 14:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with this chart then refer it to the appropriate noticeboard. I will not discuss it with you for the reasons I have tried to explain on your talk page, but which you keep removing. PeterEastern (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only stuff that I have removed from my talkpage, from you, is stuff that I moved here - because it belongs here. Discussion of article content belongs on the article's talkpage so that other editors can see it. I don't understand why you are unwilling to accept that this is the right place for this discussion. If you can't defend your edits without making unjust and, frankly ridiculous, accusations about my behaviour, then perhaps it's because they are indefensible. -- de Facto (talk). 16:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]