RE: Government admits ignorance
Thursday 13th October 2005
Excessive speed?In response to a request from Safe Speed under the Freedom of Information Act, the Department for Transport has admitted that it doesn't know what proportion of crashes are caused or contributed to by 'speeding'. It doesn't even have a working estimate.
Government admits ignorance
Doesn't know how many crashes are speed-related
Excessive speed?
The problem arises because:
- "Excessive speed" as recorded on accident report forms fails to distinguish between speed-in-excess-of-a-speed-limit and inappropriate-speed-for-the- conditions. Sample data from Durham, Avon and Somerset and Canada suggests that 70 per cent of 'excessive speed' crashes don't involve exceeding a speed limit.
- Where a crash results from high speeds, it is commonplace for there to be some very untypical and reckless behaviour behind both the speed and the crash. For example when a joyrider in a stolen car crashes in town at high speed, clearly this dangerous behaviour is fundamentally different from an otherwise responsible motorist a few miles per hour over the speed limit on the bypass.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, said: "Despite 13 years of speed cameras on British roads, the DfT can't even give us basic supporting information. The speed camera programme isn't based on science or understanding, instead it's based upon ill considered opinion, false assumptions and vested interest. Over 12 million responsible motorists have been convicted for nothing. The roads aren't getting safer, drivers are getting worse and speed cameras are far greater in distraction than in benefit.
"Our best working estimate for the proportion of crashes caused or contributed to by 'normal responsible motorists' driving in excess of a speed limit is under 2 per cent of crashes. The contrasts very remarkably with official figures showing that 60 per cent of vehicles are speeding at sample sites on most road types.
"It is outrageous and unacceptable to implement a major national road safety policy without a solid scientific foundation, yet here we are, 13 years on and they still don't have basic data.
"The DfT reply to our request is pure waffle. No answers are given to the questions asked."
Discussion
More to the point, it proves that virtually no statistic given out as 'public information' to enforce the use of money-raising road 'safety' measures can be considered even close to the truth.
The One Third lie? It's not even an exaggeration! It's been plucked from the ether to sound conveniently high yet potentially manageable through draconian measures.
The One Third lie? It's not even an exaggeration! It's been plucked from the ether to sound conveniently high yet potentially manageable through draconian measures.
Having read this organisations website, they don't strike me as advancing a very balanced argument - it's a bit like the pro-smoking lobby claiming there is no definitive proof that smoking will always kill you. Speed cameras only detect those exceeding the speed limit, in the same way that CCTV camera only catch those shoplifting (for example).
The speed camera debate is bedevilled by people arguing about something else. Whether the speed limit for the national raod network is too low is a very different argument to that for or against speed cameras. Whether there ought to be more police patrolling our roads to catch 'bad' drivers is another different argument.
I sometimes speed, I've been flashed and done & I was aggrieved. But it was my fault and I regret to say I have very little time for people who've been caught by the cops or a camera when over the limit and then moan that they're being taxed for breaking the law. If you want to speed, use a track.
The speed camera debate is bedevilled by people arguing about something else. Whether the speed limit for the national raod network is too low is a very different argument to that for or against speed cameras. Whether there ought to be more police patrolling our roads to catch 'bad' drivers is another different argument.
I sometimes speed, I've been flashed and done & I was aggrieved. But it was my fault and I regret to say I have very little time for people who've been caught by the cops or a camera when over the limit and then moan that they're being taxed for breaking the law. If you want to speed, use a track.
The government should ask "Capita Symonds" for advice on this! They've just given a presentation to our local council in which they've clearly identified speeding as the "No. 1 killer" on our area's roads! Unfortunately, the scientific evidence to support this didn't appear in the same item!
Column, I don't think you picked up the jist of the site at all. It is not pro speed and it's intention is not to help drivers get off speeding convictions (see peppipoo for that).
The Safespeed postion is that if you want reduce the number of KSI's on our roads then the measurement of speed and automatic conviction based on that measurement may not be the best way of achieving that.
Now when the government tell us that 1/3rd of all accidents are due to excessive speed then speed cameras make a lot of sense, by ensuring that everyone drives within the speed limit you will reduce KSI's by a third.
But this has not happened, despite a huge number of cameras and massive amounts of fines KSI have hardly changed at all, and in many places that employ the services of camera partnerships KSI figures have got worsem, and where they are not employed KSI's have consistantly got better.
The safespeed campaign as I see it is to highlight that speed cameras are not an effective way of increasing road safety, but are a very effective at catching people speeding, the Government needs to be honest in it's use, rather than hiding behind road safety as it is doing now.
Cheers
Paul
The Safespeed postion is that if you want reduce the number of KSI's on our roads then the measurement of speed and automatic conviction based on that measurement may not be the best way of achieving that.
Now when the government tell us that 1/3rd of all accidents are due to excessive speed then speed cameras make a lot of sense, by ensuring that everyone drives within the speed limit you will reduce KSI's by a third.
But this has not happened, despite a huge number of cameras and massive amounts of fines KSI have hardly changed at all, and in many places that employ the services of camera partnerships KSI figures have got worsem, and where they are not employed KSI's have consistantly got better.
The safespeed campaign as I see it is to highlight that speed cameras are not an effective way of increasing road safety, but are a very effective at catching people speeding, the Government needs to be honest in it's use, rather than hiding behind road safety as it is doing now.
Cheers
Paul
Some people are naturally obedient whilst others ask why. It fits with some drivers mental picture of the world that rules are there for a reason and blind obedience is what keeps society in order. I prefer to question rules, however we don't live in a society where we have much say in which rules are enforced. Speeding is one of those rules, a majority disagree with the way it is enforced but have no way of conveying that opinion apart from through their own behaviours. Sometimes they choose the wrong speed and this should be addressed with driver education and information, but other times the driver is right and the rulemakers are inflexible enough to acknowledge it.
Safespeed like other pro-campaigners are forced to bias one side of the argument to balance the excessive claims made by the anti-campaigners. If we possessed a more balanced system of government then they wouldn't have to and perhaps more sense would prevail.
Safespeed like other pro-campaigners are forced to bias one side of the argument to balance the excessive claims made by the anti-campaigners. If we possessed a more balanced system of government then they wouldn't have to and perhaps more sense would prevail.
column said:^^^ Idiot, or troll?
Having read this organisations website, they don't strike me as advancing a very balanced argument - it's a bit like the pro-smoking lobby claiming there is no definitive proof that smoking will always kill you. Speed cameras only detect those exceeding the speed limit, in the same way that CCTV camera only catch those shoplifting (for example).
The speed camera debate is bedevilled by people arguing about something else. Whether the speed limit for the national raod network is too low is a very different argument to that for or against speed cameras. Whether there ought to be more police patrolling our roads to catch 'bad' drivers is another different argument.
I sometimes speed, I've been flashed and done & I was aggrieved. But it was my fault and I regret to say I have very little time for people who've been caught by the cops or a camera when over the limit and then moan that they're being taxed for breaking the law. If you want to speed, use a track.
Argument not balanced? This is ONE SIDE of an argument balanced the Scamera lobby. Where is the balance in the pro-camera sites?
"The speed camera debate is bedevilled by people arguing about something else." Evidently. You seem to have no idea whatsoever what the debate is about.
"Speed cameras only detect those exceeding the speed limit" Even if that were true, the notion of whether there should be speed limits, and if they improve road safety, is what is in question.
"If you want to speed, use a track."Ah, the Red Flag argument. You got me there, I will die if I exceed 7 mph, best be careful.
column said:What a bad analogy.
Speed cameras only detect those exceeding the speed limit, in the same way that CCTV camera only catch those shoplifting (for example).
CCTV offers significant advantages as
1) It's having judgements made about a persons behaviour by a human being, not a simple radar speed check.
2) CCTV covers the time before and after the offence, thereby often giving "mitigating" circumstances to prosecution and accused about what happened.
3) CCTV makes no "arbitary" decision about what is safe and what isn't.
Speed cameras do none of the first two, and make completly arbitary decisions about what it will record without taking into account any external factors.
Watching a road on a CCTV you can imagine a person making a judgement that doing 50mph in the pouring rain in rush hour was 'unsafe', whereas 78mph on the same streach of road in sunshine during an early Sunday morning was "safer".
This is the issue about cameras, they are an abitary solution to a growing problem, namely that road deaths are now on the increase again. One can easily postulate as the number of cameras and fines have grown, the "safety camera" does nothing to actually improve the safety of the road because "safe" is a changeable state, not an absolute that can be measured by a single variable.
J
DoctorD said:
Safespeed like other pro-campaigners are forced to bias one side of the argument to balance the excessive claims made by the anti-campaigners. If we possessed a more balanced system of government then they wouldn't have to and perhaps more sense would prevail.
Absolutely correct, if the Partnerships real goal was to improve safety they would encourage debate from people and websites whose goal is similar not hide information, massage statistics and refuse to debate. The mere fact they don't makes it clear their real motives lie elsewhere.
joust said:
Speed cameras only detect those exceeding the speed limit, in the same way that CCTV camera only catch those shoplifting (for example).
What a bad analogy.
CCTV offers significant advantages as
1) It's having judgements made about a persons behaviour by a human being, not a simple radar speed check.
2) CCTV covers the time before and after the offence, thereby often giving "mitigating" circumstances to prosecution and accused about what happened.
3) CCTV makes no "arbitary" decision about what is safe and what isn't.
Speed cameras do none of the first two, and make completly arbitary decisions about what it will record without taking into account any external factors.
Watching a road on a CCTV you can imagine a person making a judgement that doing 50mph in the pouring rain in rush hour was 'unsafe', whereas 78mph on the same streach of road in sunshine during an early Sunday morning was "safer".
This is the issue about cameras, they are an abitary solution to a growing problem, namely that road deaths are now on the increase again. One can easily postulate as the number of cameras and fines have grown, the "safety camera" does nothing to actually improve the safety of the road because "safe" is a changeable state, not an absolute that can be measured by a single variable.
J
Actually, from what I've seen, CCTV in public places offers few benefits at all. It only makes people feel safer.
In practice, the stats show that brighter street lighting, though well annoying to us astronomers, is statistically more likely to deter criminals than CCTV -- and by a wide margin.
Despite that, the UK is the most surveilled of all Western states. Go figure...
manek said:It doesn't make me feel safer - how many CCTV clips of beatings, thefts etc have you seen?
Actually, from what I've seen, CCTV in public places offers few benefits at all. It only makes people feel safer.
OK, CCTV footing of somneone NOT getting robbed may be boring, granted, but you see lots of clips of crimes where, surprise surprise, the criminal either isn't aware of the camera or doesn't give a toss. Either way I'm not minded to think they make life any safer.
There may be a sceondary effect of the street lighting being improved to get a better picture though.
No, I agree with you matey, waste of money. Employ a copper instead. column said:
Having read this organisations website, they don't strike me as advancing a very balanced argument - it's a bit like the pro-smoking lobby claiming there is no definitive proof that smoking will always kill you.
Some people will be lucky - but unlike the speed lobby we can back with tangible argument und research - which ist standard und has a control with which to judge the findings. Ist done in very scientific methodology und not by asking biased opinion poll und loaded questions designed to get "right" answer. Und collation of data at camera sites - not standard und thus open to flaws und even Pilkington who tried to research this could not get the data he required und this was also commented upon in his research.
column said:
Speed cameras only detect those exceeding the speed limit,
Yes - und they fail to cop the one who drive aggressively before the scamera, slow to purrfection at site und then continue to drive aggressively as braodcast in Cheshire Traffic Cops programme und only reason why they were on road was PR jobby as people who live in Cheshire say "BiB on patrol? What BiB?" Und since that programme - have been down to Cat Und Fiddle road five times und never seen PC Daniel on patrol
Ist PR! :furious" und conning us yet again Und these scameras only require driving licence - ist no check on MOT or inusrance....
Und also drink driver will drive erratically but under speed limit...
Und joy rider will not give one second thought to them
Sure they are bees knees NOT!
column said:
in the same way that CCTV camera only catch those shoplifting (for example).
Und they are only shoplifter once they leave store premises. Und then they are probably long gone into the crowds.
Und let us not forget Crimewatch ist full of such footage asking if we have seen these scrotes!
Jawohl - they really cop people NOT! Und what about Basingstoke? CCTV everywhere und still they have the violent crimes! Und nobody caught apart from someone who blipped to 34 mph of course as they get to fill in form of "criminal caught" statistics und an income!
column said:
The speed camera debate is bedevilled by people arguing about something else. Whether the speed limit for the national raod network is too low is a very different argument to that for or against speed cameras.
Ist about a songle focus policy which does nothing to improve any driving standard und certainly does nothing for road safety for all. Und yes - ist not road safety to place scamera yards into speed limit change und cop on the slow down blippers to invite to a speed course as was case with the bloke who work at my firm whose COAST aware form ist now on Paulie's site for all to see
His speed? a "truly dangerous" 34 mph as he slow into a 30 mph from a 40 mph in Garstang, LanCAH££££re! Course ist a D
d good idea but ist undermined by silliness. column said:
Whether there ought to be more police patrolling our roads to catch 'bad' drivers is another different argument.
No it ist not. Ist about returning aas some part of USA und Canada to common sense policy which create compliance und safety und above all has the discretion to deal in professional manner.
column said:
I sometimes speed, I've been flashed and done & I was aggrieved. But it was my fault and I regret to say I have very little time for people who've been caught by the cops or a camera when over the limit and then moan that they're being taxed for breaking the law. If you want to speed, use a track.
The people getting copped are the blippers at speed limit change zones. Ist as easy as picking the grapes from the vines.
Everyone blip over a speed limit on any one journey by a margin und anyone who say they do not ist telling us fibbles.
Ist case of common sense und discretion und scams do not apply this und are prosecuting over nonsense transgressions und in meantime scam site regresses to the mean und accidents are fate und chance circumstances with each set of circumstances being unique to the situation. Which ist why COAST, training, und cops ist best way of dealing
With this i say 'DOWN WITH THE CAMERAS' Instead we need to focus efforts and MONEY on more driving training, stricter pratical tests? or maybe making it compulsory with retests after say 15 - 20 yrs after passing the test?
I don't know, these are ideas off the top of my head. But for now, it was safer on the roads when there were no cameras!
I don't know, these are ideas off the top of my head. But for now, it was safer on the roads when there were no cameras!
manek said:You can see how effective it is with our soaring prison population. More people are being caught, more people are being put in prison.
Despite that, the UK is the most surveilled of all Western states. Go figure...
Ask any actuary how effective CCTV is at "post loss recovery" and you'll find it's very effective in what it sets out to do (which to be fair is not to stop offence but to assist post offence).
J
"...In response to a request from Safe Speed under the Freedom of Information Act, the Department for Transport has admitted that it doesn't know what proportion of crashes are caused or contributed to by 'speeding'. It doesn't even have a working estimate..."
...and yet the camera businesses are able to quote figures which support their revenue stream. Amazing, it's as if they're making up their figures to justify their industry.
Any comments from camera representatives?
...and yet the camera businesses are able to quote figures which support their revenue stream. Amazing, it's as if they're making up their figures to justify their industry.
Any comments from camera representatives?
james_j said:
"...In response to a request from Safe Speed under the Freedom of Information Act, the Department for Transport has admitted that it doesn't know what proportion of crashes are caused or contributed to by 'speeding'. It doesn't even have a working estimate..."
...and yet the camera businesses are able to quote figures which support their revenue stream. Amazing, it's as if they're making up their figures to justify their industry.
Any comments from camera representatives?
I doubt they read this forum. But perhaps we should all forward this press release to our local partnerships to ask about the "discrepancy".
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff