New research undermines M4 cameras ( ABD)
Discussion
An interesting press release by the ABD, pasted below for the benefit of non members (join up please:)
**** EMBARGOED UNTIL 23.59 WEDNESDAY 20 JULY 2005 ****
New research undermines M4 cameras
New research from road safety group the Association of British Drivers today damned the M4 speed cameras as "a massive mistake". The Association was also charged £111 for access to vital information about the causes of crashes which, it believes, should have been made public.
In data provided by Wiltshire Constabulary, driver inattention topped the list of accident causes, followed by poor lane changing and careless/reckless behaviour. In fact, not one single accident had excess speed as the sole cause.
But included in the crashes that allowed the Partnership to use speed cameras were:
- an accident where a pedestrian fell from a bridge
- an accident where a gust of wind pushed one lorry into another
- several tyre blowout accidents
- a crash where a car drove the wrong way up the motorway
"Excess speed" came fifth on a list of accident causes along with driver fatigue. "Excess speed includes accidents where vehicles were travelling within the speed limit but too fast for the conditions - e.g. fog - where cameras could have no effect.
Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD's Road Safety Spokesman, said "These statistics show clearly that speed is far from the most significant factor in crashes - but no matter what the causes, the Partnership still thinks cameras are the solution. These figures show that cameras on the M4 will do absolutely nothing for road safety. They should be withdrawn immediately."
In investigating the causes of M4 crashes, the ABD found that hard data was next to impossible to acquire. The camera Partnership even initially denied that they held data on the causes of crashes. After requesting information from a range of departments and organisations, a request under the Freedom of Information Act was also turned down. The ABD was finally forced to pay £111 to Wiltshire Constabulary for the data.
McArthur-Christie continued, "This data - now we've forced it into the public domain - raises very serious questions about the use of speed cameras on the M4. It also raises questions about why the data has not been made public before."
Brian Gregory, the ABD's Chairman, said "This work shows clearly that we need to get away from the whole "the answer's a speed camera, now what's the question?" approach to road safety. We also want to see them forced to publish the causes of crashes they use to justify cameras."
Notes for editors
The major causes of M4 crashes, 1999-2004 were:
Inattention - a factor in 28% of crashes
Failure to judge others' path or speed (ie - poor lane changing) - a factor in 28% of crashes
Lack of judgement of own path - a factor in 17% of crashes
Fatigue - a factor in 14% of crashes
Careless, thoughtless or reckless behaviour - a factor in 14% of crashes
Excess speed - a factor in 14% of crashes
"Excess speed" is speed which is too fast for the conditions as well as speed in excess of the posted limit. As such, it is impossible to find out how many crashes were caused by drivers exceeding the limit and how many by simply too fast for the conditions.
Significantly, the causes of crashes are given rankings by accident investigators. They class causes as definite, probable and possible. "Excess speed" was ranked as a "definite" cause in just one fatal crash - less than 1% of all accidents.
*Data from Wiltshire Constabulary, M4 crashes 1999-2004
**************************************************
Press Enquiries: 0870 4442535
ABD general enquiries and membership: 07000-781544
For more information about the ABD visit our Website at http://www.abd.org.uk
**** EMBARGOED UNTIL 23.59 WEDNESDAY 20 JULY 2005 ****
New research undermines M4 cameras
New research from road safety group the Association of British Drivers today damned the M4 speed cameras as "a massive mistake". The Association was also charged £111 for access to vital information about the causes of crashes which, it believes, should have been made public.
In data provided by Wiltshire Constabulary, driver inattention topped the list of accident causes, followed by poor lane changing and careless/reckless behaviour. In fact, not one single accident had excess speed as the sole cause.
But included in the crashes that allowed the Partnership to use speed cameras were:
- an accident where a pedestrian fell from a bridge
- an accident where a gust of wind pushed one lorry into another
- several tyre blowout accidents
- a crash where a car drove the wrong way up the motorway
"Excess speed" came fifth on a list of accident causes along with driver fatigue. "Excess speed includes accidents where vehicles were travelling within the speed limit but too fast for the conditions - e.g. fog - where cameras could have no effect.
Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD's Road Safety Spokesman, said "These statistics show clearly that speed is far from the most significant factor in crashes - but no matter what the causes, the Partnership still thinks cameras are the solution. These figures show that cameras on the M4 will do absolutely nothing for road safety. They should be withdrawn immediately."
In investigating the causes of M4 crashes, the ABD found that hard data was next to impossible to acquire. The camera Partnership even initially denied that they held data on the causes of crashes. After requesting information from a range of departments and organisations, a request under the Freedom of Information Act was also turned down. The ABD was finally forced to pay £111 to Wiltshire Constabulary for the data.
McArthur-Christie continued, "This data - now we've forced it into the public domain - raises very serious questions about the use of speed cameras on the M4. It also raises questions about why the data has not been made public before."
Brian Gregory, the ABD's Chairman, said "This work shows clearly that we need to get away from the whole "the answer's a speed camera, now what's the question?" approach to road safety. We also want to see them forced to publish the causes of crashes they use to justify cameras."
Notes for editors
The major causes of M4 crashes, 1999-2004 were:
Inattention - a factor in 28% of crashes
Failure to judge others' path or speed (ie - poor lane changing) - a factor in 28% of crashes
Lack of judgement of own path - a factor in 17% of crashes
Fatigue - a factor in 14% of crashes
Careless, thoughtless or reckless behaviour - a factor in 14% of crashes
Excess speed - a factor in 14% of crashes
"Excess speed" is speed which is too fast for the conditions as well as speed in excess of the posted limit. As such, it is impossible to find out how many crashes were caused by drivers exceeding the limit and how many by simply too fast for the conditions.
Significantly, the causes of crashes are given rankings by accident investigators. They class causes as definite, probable and possible. "Excess speed" was ranked as a "definite" cause in just one fatal crash - less than 1% of all accidents.
*Data from Wiltshire Constabulary, M4 crashes 1999-2004
**************************************************
Press Enquiries: 0870 4442535
ABD general enquiries and membership: 07000-781544
For more information about the ABD visit our Website at http://www.abd.org.uk
)Safespeed issued the following PR at 10:31am Wednesday:
PR217: M4 Cameras: Accident causation data confirms Wiltshire lies
News: Strict embargo: 12:01am Thursday 21st July 2005
Accident causation data obtained by the Association of British Drivers from
Wiltshire Constabulary confirms that speeding was not a serious problem on the
M4 Motorway.
Recently Wiltshire and Swindon Camera Partnership claimed that their camera
vans had reduced crashes on the M4 by over 60% - yet examination of crash
causation data reveals that excessive speed was a factor in just 14% of
crashes.
"Excessive speed" in these terms is NOT the same as exceeding a speed
limit - it includes speed inappropriate for the conditions as well as speed in
excess of the speed limit. Sample data from Avon and Somerset, Durham and
Canada (the only such data we have been able to find) all put the split at
70/30 with 30% in excess of a speed limit. So our best estimate is that
(30%*14%=) 4.2% of M4 crashes involved exceeding a speed limit.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: I would very much like to hear the Camera
Partnership explain exactly how it is supposed to be possible that their
cameras reduced crashes by over 60% when only about 4% of crashes involved
exceeding a speed limit. It does not make sense. There is absolutely no
mechanism by which their claims could be true."
Paul continues: "Speed cameras create vested interests and the vested
interests repeatedly mislead the public about the nature of road dangers. UK
road safety cannot get back on track until the vested interests have been
dismantled and the truth is admitted."
Paul concludes: "The Government will now have to admit that they were entirely
wrong about speed cameras - and the sooner the better. Far from making the
roads safer they have damaged the foundations of British road safety by
squandering massive resources on a minor safety factor."
<ends>
Notes for editors
=================
The Association of British Drivers obtained M4 Motorway Crash 'contributory
factor' data from Wiltshire Constabulary (after considerable difficulties).
Story MUST mention the ABD (they have worked hard on this!)
See Association of British Drivers PR (to be distributed shortly with matching
embargo)
www.abd.org.uk
ABD press line: 0870 444 2535
ABD PR index
www.abd.org.uk/pr/index.htm
Expected URL of new PR
www.abd.org.uk/pr/449.htm
Previous Safe Speed PR on partnership claims:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/60
PR217: M4 Cameras: Accident causation data confirms Wiltshire lies
News: Strict embargo: 12:01am Thursday 21st July 2005
Accident causation data obtained by the Association of British Drivers from
Wiltshire Constabulary confirms that speeding was not a serious problem on the
M4 Motorway.
Recently Wiltshire and Swindon Camera Partnership claimed that their camera
vans had reduced crashes on the M4 by over 60% - yet examination of crash
causation data reveals that excessive speed was a factor in just 14% of
crashes.
"Excessive speed" in these terms is NOT the same as exceeding a speed
limit - it includes speed inappropriate for the conditions as well as speed in
excess of the speed limit. Sample data from Avon and Somerset, Durham and
Canada (the only such data we have been able to find) all put the split at
70/30 with 30% in excess of a speed limit. So our best estimate is that
(30%*14%=) 4.2% of M4 crashes involved exceeding a speed limit.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: I would very much like to hear the Camera
Partnership explain exactly how it is supposed to be possible that their
cameras reduced crashes by over 60% when only about 4% of crashes involved
exceeding a speed limit. It does not make sense. There is absolutely no
mechanism by which their claims could be true."
Paul continues: "Speed cameras create vested interests and the vested
interests repeatedly mislead the public about the nature of road dangers. UK
road safety cannot get back on track until the vested interests have been
dismantled and the truth is admitted."
Paul concludes: "The Government will now have to admit that they were entirely
wrong about speed cameras - and the sooner the better. Far from making the
roads safer they have damaged the foundations of British road safety by
squandering massive resources on a minor safety factor."
<ends>
Notes for editors
=================
The Association of British Drivers obtained M4 Motorway Crash 'contributory
factor' data from Wiltshire Constabulary (after considerable difficulties).
Story MUST mention the ABD (they have worked hard on this!)
See Association of British Drivers PR (to be distributed shortly with matching
embargo)
www.abd.org.uk
ABD press line: 0870 444 2535
ABD PR index
www.abd.org.uk/pr/index.htm
Expected URL of new PR
www.abd.org.uk/pr/449.htm
Previous Safe Speed PR on partnership claims:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/60
And yet it seems that the use of cameras is increasing on motorways around the country. Hidden up sliproads, sited dangerously on hard shoulders, as well as being placed on bridges.
This ABD research and Paul's analysis doesn't come a moment too soon. It will be interesting to see who picks it up and the responses it triggers from the vested interests.
This ABD research and Paul's analysis doesn't come a moment too soon. It will be interesting to see who picks it up and the responses it triggers from the vested interests.
The reasoned messages of PS and MMC are slowly unwinding the web of lies spun by the Scamerati, otherwise known as The....."Management".
Well done chaps!.......Oh! Paul, I just caught the last of your interview on Radio 5 yesterday. Liked the reasoning which says that if all speedometers were removed, then we still shouldn't crash, because a good driver drives to prevailing conditions.....agree wholeheartedly, I think you came over very well.
One small request though to both PS and MMC, when appearing on radio or TV, is it possible to let us know in advance on PH and ABD.
This will allow us to hear you and give you feedback, AND get others to listen who as yet are unaware of you both, a little advertising never hurts and WE the PH/ABD "massif" can do this.
Well done chaps!.......Oh! Paul, I just caught the last of your interview on Radio 5 yesterday. Liked the reasoning which says that if all speedometers were removed, then we still shouldn't crash, because a good driver drives to prevailing conditions.....agree wholeheartedly, I think you came over very well.
One small request though to both PS and MMC, when appearing on radio or TV, is it possible to let us know in advance on PH and ABD.
This will allow us to hear you and give you feedback, AND get others to listen who as yet are unaware of you both, a little advertising never hurts and WE the PH/ABD "massif" can do this.
8Pack said:
One small request though to both PS and MMC, when appearing on radio or TV, is it possible to let us know in advance on PH and ABD.
This will allow us to hear you and give you feedback, AND get others to listen who as yet are unaware of you both, a little advertising never hurts and WE the PH/ABD "massif" can do this.
My days are so bonkers these days, that I often don't get time to send such notifications widely. There are a number of web sites and and email lists that could use the information. But what I do ALWAYS try and do is post the information to the 'Safe Speed in the News and Media' forum at Safe Speed.
Perhaps someone who's regular here could monitor that forum and cross post for me?
Here's the link:
www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=16
Thanks for the info Paul, I'll monitor it more closely from now on! Hope everyone here does the same and gives you the advertising to a wider audience that you very much deserve for your efforts. 
PS....Paul, Page duly "bookmarked" for future reference!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Thursday 21st July 02:22
PS....Paul, Page duly "bookmarked" for future reference!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Thursday 21st July 02:22
Original BBC invitation for user comments - there are calls from back then for follow up reporting -- I think the BBC should be pressured to do exactly that in the light of these press releases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4440349.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4440349.stm
And I have just written to my MP:
me said:
The Association of British Drivers has today published information regarding the causation of accidents on the M4, leading up to the introduction of 'Talivan' style speed traps.
It is interesting to note that the Swindon and Wiltshire Camera Partnership was not forthcoming with this information - indeed they tried to hide it - and pretend they did not have access to such information (therefore how could they justify the existence of speed traps?). In the end the data was prized from the grip of the Partnership using a payment of £111 and the Freedom of Information act.
Upon reading the figures, it is clear why the Partnership wanted to withold the information - 'excess speed' is ranked as the 6th highest cause of accidents. 'Excess speed' includes driving too fast for the conditions, and is not solely breaking the speed limit. Significantly, the causes of crashes are given rankings by accident investigators. They class causes as definite, probable and possible. Excess speed was ranked as a definite cause in just one fatal crash — less than 1% of all accidents.
Accidents that were used to justify the placement of the cameras in Swindon and Wiltshire included:
- an accident where a pedestrian fell from a bridge
- an accident where a gust of wind pushed one lorry into another
- several tyre blowout accidents
- a crash where a car drove the wrong way up the motorway
As my serving MP I would ask for you to inspect the following PR release from the Association of British Drivers (www.abd.org.uk/pr/449.htm) and to raise these matters in public within Parliament. Surely answers are needed from the Secretary of State for the Department of Transport about how these Partnerships go about their business and justify their existences?
Yours sincerely,
james_j said:
I've just had another thought; obviously this information confirms the irrelevance of other forms of speed control like GPS limiters and Specs cameras.
Right. Speed cameras are a bad solution to a largely imaginary problem.
(edited to improve wording)
>> Edited by safespeed on Thursday 21st July 10:53
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff