Speed cameras save lives?
Discussion
So we are told that speed cameras save lives 
approx 3400 people died on our roads last year, I understand that before speed cameras were introduced the level of road fatalities was similar (correct me if I'm wrong).
We have, what, 5000+ speed cameras? (more than any other country and possibly all other countries combined?) so if every camera saved 1 life we would have saved 5000 road deaths per year?
just how many lives do they save, 1 per camera per year, 1 every 10, 1 every 100 ??
approx 3400 people died on our roads last year, I understand that before speed cameras were introduced the level of road fatalities was similar (correct me if I'm wrong).
We have, what, 5000+ speed cameras? (more than any other country and possibly all other countries combined?) so if every camera saved 1 life we would have saved 5000 road deaths per year?
just how many lives do they save, 1 per camera per year, 1 every 10, 1 every 100 ?? 
I think we've reached the point where one third of road deaths are an indirect result of speed cameras.
If the former trend in the fatal accident rate had continued after 1993, road deaths would be down to about 2,000 per year now, and not 3,500.
Having looked at every possible reason I could find for the dangerous loss of trend, only speed kills policy backed by speed cameras fits the pattern of the loss of trend.
See:
www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
If the former trend in the fatal accident rate had continued after 1993, road deaths would be down to about 2,000 per year now, and not 3,500.
Having looked at every possible reason I could find for the dangerous loss of trend, only speed kills policy backed by speed cameras fits the pattern of the loss of trend.
See:
www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
supraman2954 said:
That's coz scameras are usually placed where it is safe to do some speed, it's easier to generate revenue that way...
The rules for speed camera placement say that they can only be placed where it's safe to speed.
www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html
Paul, can you tell me if your figures for reduction to 2,000 deaths pa take into account any increase in volume of traffic and the increased time people spend of the roads becuase of greater needs to commute?
I'm not sure how much difference this would make either way, but wondered whether you'd considered these factors. Of course, if you already have, that would perhaps be another nail in the camera coffin.
If not, would there be any accurate way to take into account these figures in calculating road deaths? Simply put, if the number of cars on the roads is increasing, the actual number of road deaths is bound to increase, even though the percentage may be falling.
Sorry if the above sounds like a dig at you, that's not how it's intended, it's a genuine question (and apologies if I've missed the answer from your site).
I'm not sure how much difference this would make either way, but wondered whether you'd considered these factors. Of course, if you already have, that would perhaps be another nail in the camera coffin.
If not, would there be any accurate way to take into account these figures in calculating road deaths? Simply put, if the number of cars on the roads is increasing, the actual number of road deaths is bound to increase, even though the percentage may be falling.
Sorry if the above sounds like a dig at you, that's not how it's intended, it's a genuine question (and apologies if I've missed the answer from your site).
Dibble said:
Paul, can you tell me if your figures for reduction to 2,000 deaths pa take into account any increase in volume of traffic and the increased time people spend of the roads becuase of greater needs to commute?
Yes. The increase in traffic is taken into account. We're talking about extrapolations of the former trend of the fatality RATE figure. The fatality rate is the number of deaths per billion vehicle kilometres driven.
More on:
www.safespeed.org.uk/smeed.html
The largest factors are growth of traffic (more or less contant at +8.75 bvkm per annum) and vehicle safety improvements (improving slightly year on year and presently worth about 4% per annum) and medical care improvements (steady at about 1% per annum). Over the last decade we have to put in a negative factor to "balance the books" and I believe that is drivers getting worse at avoiding accidents under the lies and threats delivered out of speed camera policy.
safespeed said:
The rules for speed camera placement say that they can only be placed where it's safe to speed.
www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html
Hmmmm.... that makes for an enlightening read. Have you had a response to the letter you sent?
Safespeed, I have a question regarding the curve of crash risk against speed:
safespeed.org.uk/rules.html said:
Going back to the early 1960s, researchers observed the U shaped curve of crash risk against speed. This research has been repeated on numerous occasions, and each time those drivers travelling somewhat faster than the average were found to have the lowest number of accident involvements.
The distance that the driver would have to travel is the same, irrespective of speed. Would I be correct to guess that; those travelling at faster than average speeds would be at risk of an accident for a shorter time, therefore the chances having an accident is reduced?
Or has this already been factored into the argument? Dibble said:
Paul, thanks for your reply. I should have known you wouldn't have made such a basic error. Sorry.
No need to apologise. The more folk who try to find a mistake the more robust the information becomes. Mind you, no one has found a mistake yet.
PLEASE, everyone, ALWAYS, feel free to ask questions, double check, verify, criticize or whatever.
supraman2954 said:
Hmmmm.... that makes for an enlightening read. Have you had a response to the letter you sent?
No response.
supraman2954 said:
Safespeed, I have a question regarding the curve of crash risk against speed:
safespeed.org.uk/rules.html said:
Going back to the early 1960s, researchers observed the U shaped curve of crash risk against speed. This research has been repeated on numerous occasions, and each time those drivers travelling somewhat faster than the average were found to have the lowest number of accident involvements.
The distance that the driver would have to travel is the same, irrespective of speed. Would I be correct to guess that; those travelling at faster than average speeds would be at risk of an accident for a shorter time, therefore the chances having an accident is reduced?
Here's the graph:
It's supposedly about "instantaneous crash risk", so neither time nor distance is considered.
Fundamentally we're looking at a curve that relates driver skill to the risk of crash involvement. The more than averagely skilled drivers travel a bit faster than the average and crash a bit less. Low skilled drivers dodder along slowly and crash a bit more often.
At the top end of the scale (above the 90th percentile) we find nutters using speed unwisely and experts taking advantage of their skills. Hopefully it's the nutters who are responsible for the increased risk at the top end of the curve.
Without wishing to criticise Paul in any way, I believe it's fair to say that it's not speed cameras per se that are the cause of the 1400 additional deaths per year, but speed camera policy.
If we are to believe the figures, the number of KSIs decreases at speed camera locations (though not everywhere). Therefore, we need to differentiate between the cameras themselves and the wider policy if we're not to be accused of ignoring the facts (assuming they are facts of course!).
If we are to believe the figures, the number of KSIs decreases at speed camera locations (though not everywhere). Therefore, we need to differentiate between the cameras themselves and the wider policy if we're not to be accused of ignoring the facts (assuming they are facts of course!).
Gazboy said:
In the ten years or so since the Gatso sprouted, car safety has increased by leaps and bounds, with airbags, side impact bars, crumple zones, sips, wips, roll over bars (convertables), better brakes and tyre technology. Yet the death rate has stayed more or less constant since the intoduction of compulsory safety belts in 1983 ( am I right on that?), so maybe the the government is barking up the wrong tree.
No, that's not right. See this graph:
Gazboy said:
Paul, have you any figures (highlights will suffice) to back up car safety systems?
There's this:
www.lboro.ac.uk/research/esri/vsrc/pdf%20files/18ESV-000351.pdf
which contains:
Comparisons are made
between older cars, built between 1991 and 1996
and newer cars, built up to 2000.The main
conclusions are:-
• The rate of fatal driver injury in newer cars is
24% below that for the older cars
Equivalent to a little over 4% per annum.
Gazboy said:
How does information of insurance claims against drunk drivers and dangerous/due care drivers corrolate since the intoduction of widespread gatso's etc and the decline of the traffic cop?
I don't know about insurance claims, but injuries involving drunk driver have been widely reported in the press as going up over the last few years. I don't have a reference to hand.
Peter Ward said:
Without wishing to criticise Paul in any way, I believe it's fair to say that it's not speed cameras per se that are the cause of the 1400 additional deaths per year, but speed camera policy.
Absolutely. I said that didn't I?
Of course there's an argument to be had that we couldn't have had speed camera policy without speed cameras!
First time I've ever put anything on this perticular topic/forum, but I do strongly believe, from personal experience that the speed cameras DO make me less attentive to the road ahead, as I have noticed that I'm too busy looking at my speed, especially now I have heard horror stories of being fined for being 1mph over the limit!
I do keep to the speed limits, and never go over 30 in built up areas (would never forgive myself if I caused injury to anyone), but now, it is blatently obvious that these speed cameras (seemingly springing up everywhere at expidential rates!) are geared for extra revenue, nothing more, and when I hear of cases of people losing their licenses for going 1mph over the limit, whilst more serious crimes are thrown out, I can't help feeling I am living in a Twilight Zonish country, where idiocy and common sense have somehow become inverted! It scares me!
I am now so sceptical about these 'policies' that, I believe that if everyone stuck religiously to the speed limits,, the Law would then reduce the limits to entrap for reasons of revenue, and if that didn't work, they would fine us for going a tenth of a MPH for going over!, I sincerely hope I am wrong!
Chris
>> Edited by chris watton on Sunday 13th June 18:32
I do keep to the speed limits, and never go over 30 in built up areas (would never forgive myself if I caused injury to anyone), but now, it is blatently obvious that these speed cameras (seemingly springing up everywhere at expidential rates!) are geared for extra revenue, nothing more, and when I hear of cases of people losing their licenses for going 1mph over the limit, whilst more serious crimes are thrown out, I can't help feeling I am living in a Twilight Zonish country, where idiocy and common sense have somehow become inverted! It scares me!
I am now so sceptical about these 'policies' that, I believe that if everyone stuck religiously to the speed limits,, the Law would then reduce the limits to entrap for reasons of revenue, and if that didn't work, they would fine us for going a tenth of a MPH for going over!, I sincerely hope I am wrong!
Chris
>> Edited by chris watton on Sunday 13th June 18:32
it wouldnt suprise me chris tbh,the people in charge of this cr@p are all thieving,bullshat spewing bastards.......the whole 'safety camera' thing is rubbish,i mean when was the last time you saw one saving a cat from up a tree,performing the heimlich manouver or catching an armed robber?......NEVER!,infact there's more chance of 'little and large' getting starring roles as action heroes (with j-lo as eddie large's bit of fluff) in a massive budget hollywood flick!
soon it will be law that all taxpayers will have to walk around handcuffed with no trousers or underwear on so that it will be easier for the powers in charge to f**k us up the ass............we still wont get a reach around though as this is seen as 'giving something back'
soon it will be law that all taxpayers will have to walk around handcuffed with no trousers or underwear on so that it will be easier for the powers in charge to f**k us up the ass............we still wont get a reach around though as this is seen as 'giving something back'
safespeed said:
At the top end of the scale (above the 90th percentile) we find nutters using speed unwisely and experts taking advantage of their skills. Hopefully it's the nutters who are responsible for the increased
risk at the top end of the curve.
According to your graph, it's actually only around the top 3%(ie approx 2 standard deviations) who are more likely to crash than someone travelling at the average speed.
Interesting figures
SPEED DOESN'T KILL, HITTING THINGS AT SPEED DOES 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff