15.2% increase in fatal + SI crashes at Welsh speed cameras
Discussion
New report by Professor Maher finds:
OVERALL: a 15.2% increase in fatal and serious collisions at 238 speed camera sites all across Wales.
the above overall result can be separated into:
1) a 13.6% reduction at 61 fixed speed camera sites
2) a 29.9% increase at 177 mobile speed camera sites
The report uses the FTP (Four Time Periods) method.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/04_rtm.htm
The FTP method is the most accurate available because it is the only method capable of completely excluding the effect of site-selection (also known as RTM) from the final results.
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1474743/1/Alternative%2...
This new report therefore questions the report by GoSafe (the speed camera operators).
Both reports (Maher and GoSafe) use the FTP method. The difference in results is because the FTP method was not applied accurately in the GoSafe report (they only assumed when SSP (Site-Selection Period) might have been) whereas Professor Maher identified when the SSP actually was.
By applying the FTP method accurately, Professor Maher has produced the most accurate speed camera reports (London and Wales) by anyone within authority.
There are now 4 reports that use the FTP method to it's full accuracy (most recent first):
Wales speed cameras, M Maher
London speed cameras, M Maher
Thames Valley Fixed speed cameras, D Finney
Thames Valley Mobile speed cameras, D Finney
OVERALL: a 15.2% increase in fatal and serious collisions at 238 speed camera sites all across Wales.
the above overall result can be separated into:
1) a 13.6% reduction at 61 fixed speed camera sites
2) a 29.9% increase at 177 mobile speed camera sites
The report uses the FTP (Four Time Periods) method.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/04_rtm.htm
The FTP method is the most accurate available because it is the only method capable of completely excluding the effect of site-selection (also known as RTM) from the final results.
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1474743/1/Alternative%2...
This new report therefore questions the report by GoSafe (the speed camera operators).
Both reports (Maher and GoSafe) use the FTP method. The difference in results is because the FTP method was not applied accurately in the GoSafe report (they only assumed when SSP (Site-Selection Period) might have been) whereas Professor Maher identified when the SSP actually was.
By applying the FTP method accurately, Professor Maher has produced the most accurate speed camera reports (London and Wales) by anyone within authority.
There are now 4 reports that use the FTP method to it's full accuracy (most recent first):
Wales speed cameras, M Maher
London speed cameras, M Maher
Thames Valley Fixed speed cameras, D Finney
Thames Valley Mobile speed cameras, D Finney
What stands out most there is that the mobile sites create all the increase, and the fixed ones made no difference.
At fixed sites by definition I would assume that physically there is always a camera there, working or otherwise.
Whereas it is unlikely there are 177 mobile vans on duty constantly. What I would want to know is how the mobile increase actually rates against the actual presence of a van rather than the possible presence.
If the incidents can be directly linked to the presence of a van then that would be difficult to ignore (but will be of course).
At fixed sites by definition I would assume that physically there is always a camera there, working or otherwise.
Whereas it is unlikely there are 177 mobile vans on duty constantly. What I would want to know is how the mobile increase actually rates against the actual presence of a van rather than the possible presence.
If the incidents can be directly linked to the presence of a van then that would be difficult to ignore (but will be of course).
As far as I can tell, they've just the one van around here (Carmarthenshire).
My favourite was the lovely set of skid marks diving into the hedge at the side of the A48, starting at the exact point you'd anchor up having just caught sight of the van (which parks, oh so safely, on the very limited acceleration splay from someone's drive which opens onto the DCway, but happens to be quite obscured on approach by bushes until quite late. I do wonder if they've got permission to park there from the house owners who probably worry about traffic coming fast when they're pulling away, but if they just cut the hedgerow back, they'd be able to see a lot further in the first place.... https://goo.gl/maps/63rFJadUdtJ2 drive is about where the caravan is. Camera signs are newish. Skid marks gone when Google have gone by, but started about where the camera car is....)
My favourite was the lovely set of skid marks diving into the hedge at the side of the A48, starting at the exact point you'd anchor up having just caught sight of the van (which parks, oh so safely, on the very limited acceleration splay from someone's drive which opens onto the DCway, but happens to be quite obscured on approach by bushes until quite late. I do wonder if they've got permission to park there from the house owners who probably worry about traffic coming fast when they're pulling away, but if they just cut the hedgerow back, they'd be able to see a lot further in the first place.... https://goo.gl/maps/63rFJadUdtJ2 drive is about where the caravan is. Camera signs are newish. Skid marks gone when Google have gone by, but started about where the camera car is....)
An example of mobile dangers was on the A120 going towards Diss (I think), twisty road turning into a straight, I was about 4 cars back and noticed the straight was clear as we emerged from a long left hander. Pulled out and gassed it -- plenty of room to pass everything ahead (remember this is Suffolk so nobody else was fixing to overtake), good visibility. However just as I entered the straight properly, one or two cars into the overtake, the camera parked in a layby on the left came into view. The last thing I was interested in during this overtake was where my speedometer needle was pointing but suddenly I had to be.
Thank god there was plenty of room for me to absurdly brake during the overtake and continue at @65mph past the traffic spending far more time in danger than necessary.
The camera deliberately parks there to catch folks like me who'd patiently waited in the slow traffic until a good safe overtaking opportunity, yet has the AUDACITY to use the word "safety" in its name.
Studies like the OP should be made and published and these folks held properly to account then disbanded.
Thank god there was plenty of room for me to absurdly brake during the overtake and continue at @65mph past the traffic spending far more time in danger than necessary.
The camera deliberately parks there to catch folks like me who'd patiently waited in the slow traffic until a good safe overtaking opportunity, yet has the AUDACITY to use the word "safety" in its name.
Studies like the OP should be made and published and these folks held properly to account then disbanded.
supermono said:
An example of mobile dangers was on the A120 going towards Diss (I think), twisty road turning into a straight, I was about 4 cars back and noticed the straight was clear as we emerged from a long left hander. Pulled out and gassed it -- plenty of room to pass everything ahead (remember this is Suffolk so nobody else was fixing to overtake), good visibility. However just as I entered the straight properly, one or two cars into the overtake, the camera parked in a layby on the left came into view. The last thing I was interested in during this overtake was where my speedometer needle was pointing but suddenly I had to be.
Thank god there was plenty of room for me to absurdly brake during the overtake and continue at @65mph past the traffic spending far more time in danger than necessary.
The camera deliberately parks there to catch folks like me who'd patiently waited in the slow traffic until a good safe overtaking opportunity, yet has the AUDACITY to use the word "safety" in its name.
Studies like the OP should be made and published and these folks held properly to account then disbanded.
Classic. That's precisely the tactic I see employed by these 'people' every time I spot one skulking in the best revenue spot. Thank god there was plenty of room for me to absurdly brake during the overtake and continue at @65mph past the traffic spending far more time in danger than necessary.
The camera deliberately parks there to catch folks like me who'd patiently waited in the slow traffic until a good safe overtaking opportunity, yet has the AUDACITY to use the word "safety" in its name.
Studies like the OP should be made and published and these folks held properly to account then disbanded.
supermono said:
An example of mobile dangers was on the A120 going towards Diss (I think), twisty road turning into a straight, I was about 4 cars back and noticed the straight was clear as we emerged from a long left hander. Pulled out and gassed it -- plenty of room to pass everything ahead (remember this is Suffolk so nobody else was fixing to overtake), good visibility. However just as I entered the straight properly, one or two cars into the overtake, the camera parked in a layby on the left came into view. The last thing I was interested in during this overtake was where my speedometer needle was pointing but suddenly I had to be.
Thank god there was plenty of room for me to absurdly brake during the overtake and continue at @65mph past the traffic spending far more time in danger than necessary.
The camera deliberately parks there to catch folks like me who'd patiently waited in the slow traffic until a good safe overtaking opportunity, yet has the AUDACITY to use the word "safety" in its name.
Studies like the OP should be made and published and these folks held properly to account then disbanded.
That is a common tactic on single carriageway roads, which makes an absolutely mockery of the whole principle of speed enforcement.Thank god there was plenty of room for me to absurdly brake during the overtake and continue at @65mph past the traffic spending far more time in danger than necessary.
The camera deliberately parks there to catch folks like me who'd patiently waited in the slow traffic until a good safe overtaking opportunity, yet has the AUDACITY to use the word "safety" in its name.
Studies like the OP should be made and published and these folks held properly to account then disbanded.
Same thing I have mentioned before. Near enough the only times you see the mobile vans in 30 zones is when it provides somewhere nice for them to park in order to catch vehicles exceeding the limit on the straight leading up to the village which happens to be one of the few overtaking opportunities to get past whatever lorry, tractor or grandad is holding everyone else up.
Like many I work on the principle that an overtake should be carried out without fannying about, so the limit can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. If in a 60 limit overtaking a vehicle doing 50 then I ain't doing it at 60. It is safer to do it at 80 without question. Over the years I've watched countless helmets doing it at 60(and in addition usually taking an age to get there) and then cutting up the vehicle they are overtaking in order not to crash head on into an oncoming vehicle that more often than not (but not always) was never there when they started the manoeuver.
cmaguire said:
What I would want to know is how the mobile increase actually rates against the actual presence of a van rather than the possible presence.
That is a very important question. When similar increases in fatal and serious collisions occurred at mobile speed camera sites in Thames Valley, the 2nd recommendation was:http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile_report.ht...
"8.3.2 An independent investigation is recommended to determine why there has been an increase in the number and severity of collisions and casualties following the deployment of mobile speed cameras and to establish whether there were more collisions when the mobile speed cameras were on site (a direct effect) or when the sites were unattended (an indirect effect). The author requested data on the number of collisions recorded by mobile speed camera operators but was advised by the partnership that such incidents were not logged. Further research could compare dates and times of collisions with dates and times of mobile speed camera operations. Also, Police collision investigation reports could be analysed to determine how the factors that contributed to collisions changed at these sites following the deployment of mobile speed cameras."
AyBee said:
And what was the increase/decrease in traffic at the same points?
Good question. The short answer is we don't know, none of the reports have that data.The longer answer is that any change in traffic flow is just one of many factors that might influence collisions rates at the speed camera sites. Other factors might include changes in: vehicle safety features (ABS, ESC, SIP etc), the state of the economy, cost of fuel, vehicle type (cycling rates) etc. These factors tend to influence collisions rates across the entire area therefore area-wide trends can be used to compensate for all of these factors combined.
That is how changes in traffic flow (and other factors) were compensated for at the speed camera sites in the reports.
I think you will find there is some data coming out that reveals a massive hike in KSI's across the country non just Stazi zones & its got feck all to with do with speeding. It's inattention aka looking at phones & infotainment screens though current data stats really won't show this as the root cause.
I think the age demographic does show a difference in who is involved in these accidents which gives a rather massive clue.
I think the age demographic does show a difference in who is involved in these accidents which gives a rather massive clue.
cptsideways said:
I think you will find there is some data coming out that reveals a massive hike in KSI's across the country non just Stazi zones & its got feck all to with do with speeding. It's inattention aka looking at phones & infotainment screens though current data stats really won't show this as the root cause.
I think the age demographic does show a difference in who is involved in these accidents which gives a rather massive clue.
This speed obsession , its doing a good job of educating people to look at whats going on inside the car rather than outside!!! so quick look at the limit then the speedo then the phone with the odd glance at the car in front ....I think the age demographic does show a difference in who is involved in these accidents which gives a rather massive clue.
supermono said:
An example of mobile dangers was on the A120 going towards Diss (I think), twisty road turning into a straight, I was about 4 cars back and noticed the straight was clear as we emerged from a long left hander. Pulled out and gassed it -- plenty of room to pass everything ahead (remember this is Suffolk so nobody else was fixing to overtake), good visibility. However just as I entered the straight properly, one or two cars into the overtake, the camera parked in a layby on the left came into view. The last thing I was interested in during this overtake was where my speedometer needle was pointing but suddenly I had to be.
Thank god there was plenty of room for me to absurdly brake during the overtake and continue at @65mph past the traffic spending far more time in danger than necessary.
The camera deliberately parks there to catch folks like me who'd patiently waited in the slow traffic until a good safe overtaking opportunity, yet has the AUDACITY to use the word "safety" in its name.
Studies like the OP should be made and published and these folks held properly to account then disbanded.
Nothing to do with the stats or surveys, but to attempt to overtake four cars anywhere near Diss: Distinctly dodgy.Thank god there was plenty of room for me to absurdly brake during the overtake and continue at @65mph past the traffic spending far more time in danger than necessary.
The camera deliberately parks there to catch folks like me who'd patiently waited in the slow traffic until a good safe overtaking opportunity, yet has the AUDACITY to use the word "safety" in its name.
Studies like the OP should be made and published and these folks held properly to account then disbanded.
Dave Finney said:
Ken Figenus said:
Thanks for the info Dave. Good to have fact to back instinct.
You're welcome, Ken.If anyone has any questions regarding the evidence presented in the above 4 speed camera reports, just ask and I'll see if I can answer them.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff