Speed cameras do save lives
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4254623.stm
More tripe research!
New research suggests road deaths could be cut by more than two-thirds in areas around speed cameras.
Researchers from Bristol's two universities reviewed 14 studies and found wide variations.
The report, which drew together research from around the world, found that cameras appeared to cut collisions, deaths and injuries.
But the Association of British Drivers (ABD) dismissed the findings as pro-speed camera "propaganda".
The report from the University of Bristol and the University of the West of England (UWE) found that figures varied radically, with the impact of cameras on death rates ranging from a reduction of 71%, to a more modest 17%.
Equally, collisions were cut by between 5% and 69%, while injuries fell between 12% and 65%.
'Best used'
Author Paul Pilkington, public health lecturer at UWE, said: "Speed cameras have an effect but there are other factors such as traffic volumes and other traffic calming measures, it's about being able to unpick the factors."
While some of the studies examined the effects of fixed roadside cameras located at blackspots, others looked at mobile mounted devices.
Despite the variety of studies involved, the researchers say they were unable to find an overall pattern on which method was most effective.
"We need to know exactly how cameras are best used," Mr Pilkington said.
ABD spokesman Nigel Humphries claimed the increase in speed cameras on British roads had not reduced the total number of road deaths.
"Because cameras are unpopular, their fans produce a constant barrage of propaganda to try and justify them," he said.
Phil
More tripe research!
New research suggests road deaths could be cut by more than two-thirds in areas around speed cameras.
Researchers from Bristol's two universities reviewed 14 studies and found wide variations.
The report, which drew together research from around the world, found that cameras appeared to cut collisions, deaths and injuries.
But the Association of British Drivers (ABD) dismissed the findings as pro-speed camera "propaganda".
The report from the University of Bristol and the University of the West of England (UWE) found that figures varied radically, with the impact of cameras on death rates ranging from a reduction of 71%, to a more modest 17%.
Equally, collisions were cut by between 5% and 69%, while injuries fell between 12% and 65%.
'Best used'
Author Paul Pilkington, public health lecturer at UWE, said: "Speed cameras have an effect but there are other factors such as traffic volumes and other traffic calming measures, it's about being able to unpick the factors."
While some of the studies examined the effects of fixed roadside cameras located at blackspots, others looked at mobile mounted devices.
Despite the variety of studies involved, the researchers say they were unable to find an overall pattern on which method was most effective.
"We need to know exactly how cameras are best used," Mr Pilkington said.
ABD spokesman Nigel Humphries claimed the increase in speed cameras on British roads had not reduced the total number of road deaths.
"Because cameras are unpopular, their fans produce a constant barrage of propaganda to try and justify them," he said.
Phil
How can a Mobile camera in any way shape or form prevent accidents or collisions between vehicles driven by human beings????
Humans are NOT robots that suddenly change the way they drive ALL the time JUST IN CASE there is a camera around the next bend to potentially catch them at it. None of this makes any logical sense and does not stand up to Intelligent Statistical analysis. As Paul at Safespeed has been trying to demonstrate but no Authority is listening, it is much more subtle than that!
The sensible driving public at large needs a voice to tell these Ignorant Arrogant Politians that we don't want their bloody cameras and what we want are the irresponsible drivers caught and trained or taken off the road.
Cheers,
Steve.
Humans are NOT robots that suddenly change the way they drive ALL the time JUST IN CASE there is a camera around the next bend to potentially catch them at it. None of this makes any logical sense and does not stand up to Intelligent Statistical analysis. As Paul at Safespeed has been trying to demonstrate but no Authority is listening, it is much more subtle than that!
The sensible driving public at large needs a voice to tell these Ignorant Arrogant Politians that we don't want their bloody cameras and what we want are the irresponsible drivers caught and trained or taken off the road.
Cheers,
Steve.
Having read the Teletext report on this the conclusion they came to was that they MIGHT save lives but the data collected was so flawed that they couldn't make a definitive statement about it. They have suggested that a Proper study be done to glean some real data.
Show's up all the figures as guesswork if you ask me and biased guesswork at that!
Show's up all the figures as guesswork if you ask me and biased guesswork at that!
I see PH has now picked up the Safe Speed PR on the subject issued yesterday:
www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=9870
www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=9870
I've just skimed the full paper at mechsympathy's link.
It's *not* saying that cameras are saving lifes. It *is* saying that the studies it has reviewed claim this, but lack the rigoour required to definitively prove it, hence the call for better quality data.
I'm not seeing the BBC's headline in the report. If it is there, it's not the main finding.
Seems fair, to me.
It's *not* saying that cameras are saving lifes. It *is* saying that the studies it has reviewed claim this, but lack the rigoour required to definitively prove it, hence the call for better quality data.
I'm not seeing the BBC's headline in the report. If it is there, it's not the main finding.
Seems fair, to me.
Fair point dxg999, but the BMJ leader does say that.
There have already been a couple of people pull them up about it here
BMJ said:
Speed cameras prevent collisions and casualties
Speed cameras are effective in reducing the frequency of road traffic collisions and related casualties. Systematically searching for the available evidence, Pilkington and Kinra (p 331) found no randomised controlled trials, but 14 observational studies addressed the topic and fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Although inappropriate for a meta-analysis, these studies consistently provided evidence favouring speed cameras' effectiveness. Reductions ranged widely across the studies for all outcomes—collisions (5%-69%), injuries (12%-65%), and deaths (17%-71%).
There have already been a couple of people pull them up about it here
Ist funny - this ist NOT how Pual Pilkington's report reads in the BMJ - dated 14 Jan 2005 und viewable on bmj online site - ist a direct link to it on Paul's site along mit Paul's response.
but ist www.bmjjournals.com/cqi/content/short/330/7487/331
Paul Pilkington reviewed a number of different studies into the impact of the scam on the outcome - und concluded that there was so much disparity in data collection und no control data that the evidence ist flawed. All the studies he reviewed consistently showed a reduction in incidents at sites but no control data by which to measure.
he also mention regression to the mean in the document un his conclusion?
Ist not saying what BBC reports!
It says that the reductions in the outcomes across all studies reviewed ranged 17% -71% on Ks und 12%-65% on SIs. But says that the level of evidence ist poor - as most studies did not have a satisfactory comparision groups or adequate control for potential confounders. [/i[ Controlled introduction of speed cameras mit careful data collection may offer improved evidence of their effectiveness in the future.
His article also says
Mr Plikington also says he would expect negative news to be published in high income countries. But also says:
Thus ... BBC ist very guilty of MISLEADING
PROPAGANDA as per usual 
Report did not say accidents were reduced at all - it said results varied und there ist not control system to prove the conclusive evidence.
but ist www.bmjjournals.com/cqi/content/short/330/7487/331
Paul Pilkington reviewed a number of different studies into the impact of the scam on the outcome - und concluded that there was so much disparity in data collection und no control data that the evidence ist flawed. All the studies he reviewed consistently showed a reduction in incidents at sites but no control data by which to measure.
he also mention regression to the mean in the document un his conclusion?
real article und not the proapagandist one said:
Published research consistently shows the effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions und injuries. However, the level of evidences ist relatively poor und better evidence needs to be collected to iomprove the evidence base
Ist not saying what BBC reports!
It says that the reductions in the outcomes across all studies reviewed ranged 17% -71% on Ks und 12%-65% on SIs. But says that the level of evidence ist poor - as most studies did not have a satisfactory comparision groups or adequate control for potential confounders. [/i[ Controlled introduction of speed cameras mit careful data collection may offer improved evidence of their effectiveness in the future.
His article also says
real articles as appeared in BMJ said:
Depsite our best effortswe have not been able to identify all relevant publications. as road safety reseach ist often published as reports und other forms to grey literature
Mr Plikington also says he would expect negative news to be published in high income countries. But also says:
real BMJ article said:
Although it is plausible that findings have been withheld from publication. we could not test formally for publication bias because of the varied nature of study designs und outcome measures used
Thus ... BBC ist very guilty of MISLEADING
PROPAGANDA as per usual Report did not say accidents were reduced at all - it said results varied und there ist not control system to prove the conclusive evidence.
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
I can't really use this myself - but please feel free. Post Hutton the Beeb really have to respond and respond quickly!
Phil
I can't really use this myself - but please feel free. Post Hutton the Beeb really have to respond and respond quickly!
Phil
Article conclusion said:
Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties. The level of evidence is relatively poor, however, as most studies did not have satisfactory comparison groups or adequate control for potential confounders. Controlled introduction of speed cameras with careful data collection may offer improved evidence of their effectiveness in the future.
It looks like another paper that wants to be seen to support the status quo while having no evidence to support it, much like salt causing high blood pressure.
Either the studies do show cameras are effective, or the evidence is relatively poor. They can't be both.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff