KSIs fall after cameras switched off
Discussion
Well the Aussies have found out first, cameras are at best no use at all, at worst, causing KSI's
www.theage.com.au/news/National/Ring-Road-mayhem-declines-without-pictures/2004/12/01/1101577553678.html?oneclick=true
edited due to grammatical; errors
>>> Edited by gopher on Thursday 2nd December 09:13
www.theage.com.au/news/National/Ring-Road-mayhem-declines-without-pictures/2004/12/01/1101577553678.html?oneclick=true
theage said:
The number of crashes and serious injuries on the Western Ring Road appears to be falling, despite fixed speed cameras having been turned off since May.
The decline, shown in police figures, undermines Police Minister Andre Haermeyer's repeated warnings that the absence of cameras encourages speeding and other driver misbehaviour.
It also raises questions about the Government's strong linking of speed camera enforcement to reductions in the road toll.
The police figures compare Ring Road crash and injury statistics from 2002 and 2003 with data from the first 10 months of this year. Between January and the end of October, there were 60 crashes causing injury on the Ring Road. The year before, there were 91 injury-causing crashes and 70 in 2002.
Fixed speed cameras were turned off on the road in May when Premier Steve Bracks admitted that tens of thousands of drivers had been wrongly fined because of faulty cameras.
The number of crashes is also lower this year - 208 for the 10 months to October, as opposed to 243 for all of last year.
The details emerged as fixed cameras were reactivated yesterday on the Monash Freeway and CityLink, and as Mr Haermeyer announced that bunkers would be built along the Ring Road to allow for greater deployment of mobile speed cameras. Fixed cameras will be reactivated on the Ring Road in mid-2005.
Mr Haermeyer has repeatedly linked the removal of the cameras to an increase in speeding and fatalities on the Ring Road. Yesterday, he reiterated his belief that driver behaviour was worse since cameras were deactivated.
"I drive on the Western Ring Road every day... my driver's car sits on cruise control at just on 100. The number of cars that are passing me now compared to what was the case a year ago is quite significantly higher," he said. "In the 18 months those cameras were operating, we had zero deaths on the Western Ring Road. Since September last year, we've had two already."
The police statistics show that three people have been killed on the Ring Road this year (the two referred to by Mr Haermeyer plus a pedestrian) compared with none in 2003 and one in 2002.
But the figures also suggest that driver behaviour has not worsened in the absence of fixed cameras. Major and serious injuries from crashes are lower - in 2003 there were 43 on the Ring Road, compared with just 28 for the first 10 months of this year.
RACV general manager Ken Ogden said the figures showed the Ring Road was relatively safe. "The overwhelming majority of drivers drive safely," he said, "they don't need speed cameras, they do the right thing."
The RACV would welcome the reintroduction of fixed cameras next year, but the Government had a credibility problem that needed to be tackled first, Dr Ogden said. "The perception that enforcement is about revenue is highly detrimental to road safety. The Government has got to put the proceeds of fines back into road safety and not into revenue, so that the public will see it is a road safety program."
Police Assistant Commissioner (Traffic) Bob Hastings supported Mr Haermeyer's view that some people were "taking advantage" of the cameras' absence.
Dr Ian Johnston, head of Monash University's Accident Research Centre, said it was difficult to accurately analyse statistics from one stretch of road because of the small sample size.
edited due to grammatical; errors
>>> Edited by gopher on Thursday 2nd December 09:13
Makes sense to me. The fatality rates at UK scamera sites have fallen by 40%, the government like to spin this as a good thing. We all know that government policy is to erect a scamera where there have been recent fatalities. I would expect the fatality rate to fall by 100% at any given scamera site, if the policy works. Even if a scamera was not fitted, there would be a minimal chance of another fatality occurring in exactly the same location within the next few years, aka ‘regression to mean’ (unless is the case of poor road design). So how can there still be so many accidents at scamera sites? IMO 60% (remaining) suggests there will be another accident/fatality at the scamera site, likely caused by the presence of the scamera, very soon.
supraman2954 said:
Makes sense to me. The fatality rates at UK scamera sites have fallen by 40%, the government like to spin this as a good thing. We all know that government policy is to erect a scamera where there have been recent fatalities. I would expect the fatality rate to fall by 100% at any given scamera site, if the policy works. Even if a scamera was not fitted, there would be a minimal chance of another fatality occurring in exactly the same location within the next few years, aka ‘regression to mean’ (unless is the case of poor road design). So how can there still be so many accidents at scamera sites? IMO 60% (remaining) suggests there will be another accident/fatality at the scamera site, likely caused by the presence of the scamera, very soon.
What on earth are you talking about? The fatality rates at carefully selected camera sites have regressed to the mean, indicating a fall by as much as 40%. At all other sites KSIs have increased. Overall the raw number of deaths has increased since the introduction of the death/theft cameras. In areas where cameras are not favoured the number of deaths has continued to follow the previous trend and decline. The real speed related death figures are only about 100 deaths annual anyway. When comparing this to other accidental deaths it is not statistically significant and when the "driver suicide" element is factored in we are left with a conclusion that the death/theft partnerships relieve us of £200m annually with a maximum possible life saving of 80 souls. This is almost £3M per life saved (and they are 100% ineffective). Contrast this with the 1000 people killed by speed humps and the 5000 killed by MRSA and we begin to unearth the most insane piece of thinking in the history of the planet.
gopher said:
Well the Aussies have found out first, cameras are at best no use at all, at worst, causing KSI's
<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Ring-Road-mayhem-declines-without-pictures/2004/12/01/1101577553678.html?oneclick=true"><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Ring-Road-mayhem-declines-without-pictures/2004/12/01/1101577553678.html?oneclick=true">www.theage.com.au/news/National/Ring-Road-mayhem-declines-without-pictures/2004/12/01/1101577553678.html?oneclick=true</a></a>
theage said:
An article about the effect of switching off cameras.
Whilst we all know scameras are a big con we need to think what we would do to these statistics if they were being quoted after the introduction of scameras. We would say regression to the mean, comparing several months after with years worth of before data, all the usual scamera tricks. The deaths the Police minister is talking about for example, he says occurred this year, was this before or after the cameras were switched off in May? It only takes one drunken driver to distort the statistics for the whole year. All these statistics really indicate is that scameras make no real difference at best. The experiment would need to be continued for longer than this to reveal any real differences, the chance of that happening is zero. So whilst these figures give no scientific basis for a challenge to scameras I have to recognise that we live in the real world, and we should fire them back at the scammers as they certainly would if the tables were turned.
>> Edited by IanReid on Thursday 2nd December 10:02
The last line is pretty interesting....
Stating the bleeding obvious of course, but someone with Dr in front of their name working in an 'accident research centre' is saying you can't use the area of road covered by a speed camera as a decent sample... 40% reduction in casualties at camera sites anyone?
Dr Ian Johnston head of Monash University's Accident Research Centre said:
It was difficult to accurately analyse statistics from one stretch of road because of the small sample size
Stating the bleeding obvious of course, but someone with Dr in front of their name working in an 'accident research centre' is saying you can't use the area of road covered by a speed camera as a decent sample... 40% reduction in casualties at camera sites anyone?
james_j said:
It will be interesting to hear comments from the UK camera representatives....
Better ask 'Speedfinder-General' Callaghan of the Cumbria Silly Camera Pratnership about this. I'm sure he could find something sarcastic to say about it, as usual.
By the way, they have been particularly stupid lately, suggesting that anyone exceeding any speed limit by any amout is 'out of control of their vehicle' - yes, really, take a look!
nonegreen said:….at the scamera location? Are you telling me you are expecting frequent occurences of KSIs at these exact locations? (let alone the rest of the road network).
What on earth are you talking about? The fatality rates at carefully selected camera sites have regressed to the mean, indicating a fall by as much as 40%.
I would expect that a garden gnome would yield around a 90% reduction of KSIs at the KSI site in that year (or three). I suppose it all comes down to what you define as a scamera site.
cooperman said:
It will be interesting to hear comments from the UK camera representatives....
Better ask 'Speedfinder-General' Callaghan of the Cumbria Silly Camera Pratnership about this. I'm sure he could find something sarcastic to say about it, as usual.
By the way, they have been particularly stupid lately, suggesting that anyone exceeding any speed limit by any amout is 'out of control of their vehicle' - yes, really, take a look!
It's strange that there has still been no comment. Ah well, I'm not that surprised.
In respect to their utterly ignorant and frankly irrelevant comments about not being in control of a vehicle if in excess of an often too low speed limit, I have to ask "are they actually drivers"?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff