Speed Cameras and Accident Figures
Discussion
OK some statistices state that accident levels have dropped due to cameras, and in other cases some forces have apparently seen accidents increase despite having speed cameras.
I have been pondering a theory so thought I would seek views on here.
Accidents generally speaking are not soley speed related. The only accidents which are solely speed related is if you are going to fast for the conditions and skid off the road, or fail to make it around a corner.
Other accidents where alledged excessive speed are involved are likely to be caused by mechanical failure, lack of observation (not seeing the car coming the other way when overtaking, not seeing the cars in front braking, etc) misjudgement (pulling out in front of fast moving traffic etc), driving too close etc and of course its not just down to the speeding driver some of these accidents are likely to be caused by drivers within the speedlimit who have been hit by a speeding driver.
So in this case as most accidents are not solely speed related why do cameras reduce accidents? The simple reason is that drivers are much more attentive to their speed and the car in front, and they don't overtake whilst passing a camera!
Why do accidents increase in counties with speed cameras? Could this be because speed cameras are usually on fast straight roads? These are ideal overtaking places, but I suggest most people exceed the speed limit when overtaking, because they want to pass the slower moving traffic in the shortest time possible. Therefore if there is a speed camera on a straight bit of road they won't overtake.
This however leads to a problem as they are now stuck behind slow moving traffic, so they get impatient. They can't overtake in the otherwise safe places due to cameras, so they overtake in less safe places, thereby resulting in more accidents?
Anyone think this view might have some merit?
I have been pondering a theory so thought I would seek views on here.
Accidents generally speaking are not soley speed related. The only accidents which are solely speed related is if you are going to fast for the conditions and skid off the road, or fail to make it around a corner.
Other accidents where alledged excessive speed are involved are likely to be caused by mechanical failure, lack of observation (not seeing the car coming the other way when overtaking, not seeing the cars in front braking, etc) misjudgement (pulling out in front of fast moving traffic etc), driving too close etc and of course its not just down to the speeding driver some of these accidents are likely to be caused by drivers within the speedlimit who have been hit by a speeding driver.
So in this case as most accidents are not solely speed related why do cameras reduce accidents? The simple reason is that drivers are much more attentive to their speed and the car in front, and they don't overtake whilst passing a camera!
Why do accidents increase in counties with speed cameras? Could this be because speed cameras are usually on fast straight roads? These are ideal overtaking places, but I suggest most people exceed the speed limit when overtaking, because they want to pass the slower moving traffic in the shortest time possible. Therefore if there is a speed camera on a straight bit of road they won't overtake.
This however leads to a problem as they are now stuck behind slow moving traffic, so they get impatient. They can't overtake in the otherwise safe places due to cameras, so they overtake in less safe places, thereby resulting in more accidents?
Anyone think this view might have some merit?
** I'd suggest that failing to make it around a corner is not speed induced, as the primary cause is driver error,speed is secondary, would you agree?
** My own theory on chris's points are thus: Road "A" has a history of accidents, as ever, the true cause of the accidents isnt properly investigated/recorded, so in a fit of avarice, the scamera partnerships erect a gatso. This creates a few different scenario's; 1) it causes panic braking at the site and the crashes continue, (2) Certain driver's behaviour changes, so they slow for the gatso, then speed up afterwards,(3)Drivers divert to other roads and the accidents occur there instead of Road "A", which in itself creates a blackspot and then gets justified for another gatso.
From the above, you can see the results of siting these cash boxes, but the following can also be seen, which answers nicely your points: Overall, in most counties, accidents rates are either static, or increasing; at certain local sites of scameras, the rate has also gone up; In some instance the opposite is true, the rate has come down, but NOT because scameras are effective accident preventers! NO, the rate has dropped at these "flagship" sites, simply due to drivers diverting to other roads, so less cars on Road "A" = less accidents....simple statistical shennanigans, nothing more.
Of course, they fail to mention this while trumpeting the scameras effectiveness, and also fail to mention the overall figures, which surely are the ones to be looking at? ***
>> Edited by deltaf on Saturday 20th September 08:58
If one looks at a graph of fatalities on the roads since 1973 to 2002 there will be seen a steady trend downwards from 6831 in 1973 to 3814 in 1993, the year speed cameras were introduced. Had that downward trend continued through to 2002 the projected number of fatalities would be 2378. They are in fact higher than that at 3431. From 1993 the graph almost levels off instead of continuing down. This, despite the steady increase in billions of vehicle miles over the same 30 year period.
If speed cameras were effective at saving lives we should have seen a further decrease in fatalities from 1993 to 2002, to one substantially below the projected figure of 2378. Yet the opposite has occurred. Is it coincidental that the fatality levels stopped falling around the camera introduction year? If so, what other factor has been causal to this seizure of decline? Searches have proved fruitless. The introduction of the speed camera stands out as the major event. Could it be that as more and more are concentrating on 'where the cameras are' they are missing other more vital attention to moving hazards? Possibly so.
One factor that has been increasing dramatically with the further installation of speed detecting equipment, is the number of drivers caught speeding and the amount of money the treasury and camera partnerships have collected from them. Millions of drivers each year are fined, yet there are not millions of accidents. Many of these drivers have had an accident free record for decades yet they are being branded 'criminals'. The real 'criminals' behind the wheel can occasionally be seen driving around housing estates at reckless speeds, or past schools - they won't get caught though - there are precious few cameras sited in such places. A speed camera cannot detect erratic driving or someone reading a map/report whilst driving, or under the influence of drink or drugs. They are of limited use in policing a narrow band of technical law breaking.
The track record of speed cameras is one of dubious quality despite the claims made by government, the police and the camera partnerships. They are possibly the one major factor of resentment and disrespect towards the police that has graced these last ten years. The police have been labelled 'tax collectors' despite many mobile units being manned by non police officers. Speed cameras are seen to be about as welcome as a visitation from the local Tom cat in a childs sand pit amongst the majority of drivers. Ironically, it is often the locals who cry for speed cameras to stop "speeding" motorists in their patch of road, who are the first ones to get caught by the very cameras they petitioned for!
It is argued that excessive speed (that over and above what may be posted, and innapropriate speed - is that 2mph instead of 1?) is contributory to a third of all accidents. On examination the figures do not add up. Far more accidents happen at below posted speed limits than do above - should we therefore lower all speed limits? Some would shout "yes!" But evidence shows that there is in fact a higher risk of accident occurrence at speeds below 20mph than at 30mph. Less attention is given to the road at slower speeds and pedestrians are more apt to 'make a dash' if traffic moves slower. Children do not percieve slower moving traffic as such a threat than that which moves quicker, education is key.
There are a great many factors contributing to an accident, one of the major ones is insufficient attention to prevailing conditions which includes other vehicle movements at any speed. But if 'any' speed is taken into the equation of accident contribution, then even one mile an hour can be classified as a speed related accident - what value statistics then? Of far greater value is training and education, not just enough to pass a test, but ongoing with incentives to excel. One major area could be in insurance premiums.
Three key areas to road safety are in three 'E's - Education; Engineering; Enforcement. Currently we are experiencing - Enforcement; Enforcement; Enforcement.
If speed cameras were effective at saving lives we should have seen a further decrease in fatalities from 1993 to 2002, to one substantially below the projected figure of 2378. Yet the opposite has occurred. Is it coincidental that the fatality levels stopped falling around the camera introduction year? If so, what other factor has been causal to this seizure of decline? Searches have proved fruitless. The introduction of the speed camera stands out as the major event. Could it be that as more and more are concentrating on 'where the cameras are' they are missing other more vital attention to moving hazards? Possibly so.
One factor that has been increasing dramatically with the further installation of speed detecting equipment, is the number of drivers caught speeding and the amount of money the treasury and camera partnerships have collected from them. Millions of drivers each year are fined, yet there are not millions of accidents. Many of these drivers have had an accident free record for decades yet they are being branded 'criminals'. The real 'criminals' behind the wheel can occasionally be seen driving around housing estates at reckless speeds, or past schools - they won't get caught though - there are precious few cameras sited in such places. A speed camera cannot detect erratic driving or someone reading a map/report whilst driving, or under the influence of drink or drugs. They are of limited use in policing a narrow band of technical law breaking.
The track record of speed cameras is one of dubious quality despite the claims made by government, the police and the camera partnerships. They are possibly the one major factor of resentment and disrespect towards the police that has graced these last ten years. The police have been labelled 'tax collectors' despite many mobile units being manned by non police officers. Speed cameras are seen to be about as welcome as a visitation from the local Tom cat in a childs sand pit amongst the majority of drivers. Ironically, it is often the locals who cry for speed cameras to stop "speeding" motorists in their patch of road, who are the first ones to get caught by the very cameras they petitioned for!
It is argued that excessive speed (that over and above what may be posted, and innapropriate speed - is that 2mph instead of 1?) is contributory to a third of all accidents. On examination the figures do not add up. Far more accidents happen at below posted speed limits than do above - should we therefore lower all speed limits? Some would shout "yes!" But evidence shows that there is in fact a higher risk of accident occurrence at speeds below 20mph than at 30mph. Less attention is given to the road at slower speeds and pedestrians are more apt to 'make a dash' if traffic moves slower. Children do not percieve slower moving traffic as such a threat than that which moves quicker, education is key.
There are a great many factors contributing to an accident, one of the major ones is insufficient attention to prevailing conditions which includes other vehicle movements at any speed. But if 'any' speed is taken into the equation of accident contribution, then even one mile an hour can be classified as a speed related accident - what value statistics then? Of far greater value is training and education, not just enough to pass a test, but ongoing with incentives to excel. One major area could be in insurance premiums.
Three key areas to road safety are in three 'E's - Education; Engineering; Enforcement. Currently we are experiencing - Enforcement; Enforcement; Enforcement.
And thats exactly why their stupidity will be the cause of more needless deaths.
This is a subject i feel passionately able to talk about for an extended period of time, even though ive never been "scammered" myself..at least not by a capable one!
Why the massive reliance on enforcement to "fix" a problem that dosent exist?
I recently did some heavy digging and found some particularly useful info thats currently being used to great effect to demonstrate the "speed kills" lie.
It will come to grinding halt for these losers sooner or later, when it finally sinks into their two inch thick skulls, that theres far more to accident frequency and causation than simply blabbing some nonsense about "speed kills" and bunging up another bullshit speed scamera.
I really feel the worm is about to turn, and when it does, ill bet that they do the usual blagging with stats to try to save themselves. However, its not going to save them. Far from it. The foundations for their own demise are already laid, and the irony is that they laid those foundations themselves.
I for one wont mourn their passing for even a microsecond, as i floor the accelerator and disappear up the road past another burnt out Gatso!!
Smell that? Its the winds of change.
This is a subject i feel passionately able to talk about for an extended period of time, even though ive never been "scammered" myself..at least not by a capable one!
Why the massive reliance on enforcement to "fix" a problem that dosent exist?
I recently did some heavy digging and found some particularly useful info thats currently being used to great effect to demonstrate the "speed kills" lie.
It will come to grinding halt for these losers sooner or later, when it finally sinks into their two inch thick skulls, that theres far more to accident frequency and causation than simply blabbing some nonsense about "speed kills" and bunging up another bullshit speed scamera.
I really feel the worm is about to turn, and when it does, ill bet that they do the usual blagging with stats to try to save themselves. However, its not going to save them. Far from it. The foundations for their own demise are already laid, and the irony is that they laid those foundations themselves.
I for one wont mourn their passing for even a microsecond, as i floor the accelerator and disappear up the road past another burnt out Gatso!!
Smell that? Its the winds of change.
Derek a good well reasoned post, you won't find me arguing against it 
. One point however that has always troubled me, well recently actually 
, is, the figures and statistics quoted never seem to be 'normalised' for the amount of cars on the roads and more importantly an average mileage for all those cars. I for one would/could be swayed more effectively by a more meaning full figure of acidents/deaths per xxxx miles travelled per car on the road, it is sometihing that is easier to relate to IMHO. Undoubtedly these figures will go some way to explain the tailing off of some of the figures you mentioned but would also show how safe the roads really are. Just a thought .
Harry
. One point however that has always troubled me, well recently actually , is, the figures and statistics quoted never seem to be 'normalised' for the amount of cars on the roads and more importantly an average mileage for all those cars. I for one would/could be swayed more effectively by a more meaning full figure of acidents/deaths per xxxx miles travelled per car on the road, it is sometihing that is easier to relate to IMHO. Undoubtedly these figures will go some way to explain the tailing off of some of the figures you mentioned but would also show how safe the roads really are. Just a thought . Harry
Harry, and all, you can do little worse than visit the following websites for an alternative view to the government's on accident causation and vehicle numbers per Mile/kilometer with links to official sites for comparison.
www.abd.org.uk/ check out the 'fatalities' amongst others;
www.safespeed.org.uk
www.onethirdlie.org.uk
Links from all of these sites will get you into government sites and claims made about their various reports, though access to them may involve expense despite their claims to be making them "freely" available.
>> Edited by Derek R. on Sunday 21st September 09:01
www.abd.org.uk/ check out the 'fatalities' amongst others;
www.safespeed.org.uk
www.onethirdlie.org.uk
Links from all of these sites will get you into government sites and claims made about their various reports, though access to them may involve expense despite their claims to be making them "freely" available.
>> Edited by Derek R. on Sunday 21st September 09:01
Some useful points made above.
In case this is of any help, some figures from Saturday's Telegraph:
About two thirds of all fatal or serious-injury crashes occur on roads with a speed limit of 30 mph or less, yet only 52% of fixed-camera sites are positioned in these zones nationally. (There are regional variations, however.)
It would seem that cameras are sited where there is more chance of some income, or is that being cynical?
Not that speed cameras are any contributor to deaths / injury reduction as we already know. Adding more cameras to 30mph zones will not help (that is probably the camera-lovers next answer!), improved driver skills will probably help though, through better driving test education.
In case this is of any help, some figures from Saturday's Telegraph:
About two thirds of all fatal or serious-injury crashes occur on roads with a speed limit of 30 mph or less, yet only 52% of fixed-camera sites are positioned in these zones nationally. (There are regional variations, however.)
It would seem that cameras are sited where there is more chance of some income, or is that being cynical?
Not that speed cameras are any contributor to deaths / injury reduction as we already know. Adding more cameras to 30mph zones will not help (that is probably the camera-lovers next answer!), improved driver skills will probably help though, through better driving test education.
The answer to the original thread is you take a short period of time when an unusually high number of accidents occur and then publicly do something. Painting a yellow and red flower on the road will do the trick. Then you measure the number of accidents again and hey presto it has been reduced.
As for cameras causing the reduced decrease in accidents I disagree. It is the prevalence of speed limits that are significantly lower than the perceived speed of a safe driver that are the cause.
In Suffolk in 95 every village had 30mph speed limits imposed whether they needed it or not. The definition of village was made so wide that there are 30 limits through open countryside. So we now have the largest experiment in the world at imposing limits below the 85th percentile. If you look at the number of accidents - I found them somewhere, I think abd - you will see that before 95 they were falling in line with the national trend. After 95 they have risen against a national trend of still falling.
Relatively speaking there are few fixed cameras in Suffolk and only recently have they started using Talivans.
As for cameras causing the reduced decrease in accidents I disagree. It is the prevalence of speed limits that are significantly lower than the perceived speed of a safe driver that are the cause.
In Suffolk in 95 every village had 30mph speed limits imposed whether they needed it or not. The definition of village was made so wide that there are 30 limits through open countryside. So we now have the largest experiment in the world at imposing limits below the 85th percentile. If you look at the number of accidents - I found them somewhere, I think abd - you will see that before 95 they were falling in line with the national trend. After 95 they have risen against a national trend of still falling.
Relatively speaking there are few fixed cameras in Suffolk and only recently have they started using Talivans.
To complement information regarding connections between speed cameras and fatalities, this piece has just come up:
"On the day that John Rowling, Project Manager for the Speed Reduction Initiative covering Dyfed Powis, South Wales and Gwent claimed success in reducing road deaths by 36% since 2000 my local paper revealed that in the first 8 months of 2003, road deaths in Dyfed Powis were up 75% over the same period in 2002.
This will no doubt be taken as a reason for increasing the number of cameras, rather than evidence of failure."
Regards - Geoff Davies
_______________________
Derek R.
"On the day that John Rowling, Project Manager for the Speed Reduction Initiative covering Dyfed Powis, South Wales and Gwent claimed success in reducing road deaths by 36% since 2000 my local paper revealed that in the first 8 months of 2003, road deaths in Dyfed Powis were up 75% over the same period in 2002.
This will no doubt be taken as a reason for increasing the number of cameras, rather than evidence of failure."
Regards - Geoff Davies
_______________________
Derek R.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff