TfL rejects speedcam evidence and opts for its own dogma
Discussion
Snips from LTT are below.
Transport for London this week stood by its claim that fixed speed cameras in the capital have cut killed and serious injuries (KSIs) by 58%, despite a road safety analyst concluding that the cameras have delivered no casualty benefit.
TfL has repeatedly said that the capital’s fixed speed cameras have delivered, on average, a 58% reduction in KSIs at camera sites, and says this means they help prevent 500 deaths or serious injuries each year (LTT 14 Nov 14). The claim has helped justify an investment programme to replace hundreds of wet film fixed cameras with new digital equipment.
It has now emerged that TfL officials were told the claim was incorrect in 2014 by Mike Maher, an honorary professor at University College London, and member of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. He is also a Chartered statistician.
Maher says: “What TfL did not say was that this percentage fall in KSIs at camera sites matched that across London generally over the same period; that is, no allowance was made for trend.”
The papers Maher presented to officials have just been released by TfL following a Freedom of Information request made by retired engineer and speed camera critic Idris Francis. In them, Maher presents findings from his analysis of casualty data for hundreds of fixed camera sites in the capital.
Maher did find evidence to support the effectiveness of the capital’s red light enforcement cameras.
Transport for London this week stood by its claim that fixed speed cameras in the capital have cut killed and serious injuries (KSIs) by 58%, despite a road safety analyst concluding that the cameras have delivered no casualty benefit.
TfL has repeatedly said that the capital’s fixed speed cameras have delivered, on average, a 58% reduction in KSIs at camera sites, and says this means they help prevent 500 deaths or serious injuries each year (LTT 14 Nov 14). The claim has helped justify an investment programme to replace hundreds of wet film fixed cameras with new digital equipment.
It has now emerged that TfL officials were told the claim was incorrect in 2014 by Mike Maher, an honorary professor at University College London, and member of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. He is also a Chartered statistician.
Maher says: “What TfL did not say was that this percentage fall in KSIs at camera sites matched that across London generally over the same period; that is, no allowance was made for trend.”
The papers Maher presented to officials have just been released by TfL following a Freedom of Information request made by retired engineer and speed camera critic Idris Francis. In them, Maher presents findings from his analysis of casualty data for hundreds of fixed camera sites in the capital.
Maher did find evidence to support the effectiveness of the capital’s red light enforcement cameras.
Idris Francis said:
A toxic combination of incompetent analysis, wishful thinking and utter determination by officials and politicians alike not to admit that they have been wrong all along has led to that rare beast, a £300m a year countrywide industry with no identifiable end product whatever. This has to stop.
I don’t have too much of a problem with cameras in ultra-urban environment (out in the sticks a completely different ball game) particularly for the enforcement of 30mph speed limits, which there are plenty of in London.
TfL’s roads are a bit of a mix with 70/60mph down to 20mph, enforcing the high speeds I’m not so happy about but at the other end of the spectrum forcing vehicle to abide by the speed limit on Oxford Street (as an example) isn’t a bad thing in my opinion.
TfL’s roads are a bit of a mix with 70/60mph down to 20mph, enforcing the high speeds I’m not so happy about but at the other end of the spectrum forcing vehicle to abide by the speed limit on Oxford Street (as an example) isn’t a bad thing in my opinion.
turbobloke said:
Snips from LTT are below.
Transport for London this week stood by its claim that fixed speed cameras in the capital have cut killed and serious injuries (KSIs) by 58%, despite a road safety analyst concluding that the cameras have delivered no casualty benefit.
TfL has repeatedly said that the capital’s fixed speed cameras have delivered, on average, a 58% reduction in KSIs at camera sites, and says this means they help prevent 500 deaths or serious injuries each year (LTT 14 Nov 14). The claim has helped justify an investment programme to replace hundreds of wet film fixed cameras with new digital equipment.
It has now emerged that TfL officials were told the claim was incorrect in 2014 by Mike Maher, an honorary professor at University College London, and member of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. He is also a Chartered statistician.
Maher says: “What TfL did not say was that this percentage fall in KSIs at camera sites matched that across London generally over the same period; that is, no allowance was made for trend.”
The papers Maher presented to officials have just been released by TfL following a Freedom of Information request made by retired engineer and speed camera critic Idris Francis. In them, Maher presents findings from his analysis of casualty data for hundreds of fixed camera sites in the capital.
Maher did find evidence to support the effectiveness of the capital’s red light enforcement cameras.
Typical of those sort of people in that sort of work area. In my area, the fools responsible for making traffic congestion worse by adding pointless traffic islands and pinch points etc. display similar pig-headed stupidity; money wasted, accidents increased, couple of fatals too and they won't admit they've made a mistake. Their jobs are secure, they have power way beyond their ability and we all suffer.Transport for London this week stood by its claim that fixed speed cameras in the capital have cut killed and serious injuries (KSIs) by 58%, despite a road safety analyst concluding that the cameras have delivered no casualty benefit.
TfL has repeatedly said that the capital’s fixed speed cameras have delivered, on average, a 58% reduction in KSIs at camera sites, and says this means they help prevent 500 deaths or serious injuries each year (LTT 14 Nov 14). The claim has helped justify an investment programme to replace hundreds of wet film fixed cameras with new digital equipment.
It has now emerged that TfL officials were told the claim was incorrect in 2014 by Mike Maher, an honorary professor at University College London, and member of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. He is also a Chartered statistician.
Maher says: “What TfL did not say was that this percentage fall in KSIs at camera sites matched that across London generally over the same period; that is, no allowance was made for trend.”
The papers Maher presented to officials have just been released by TfL following a Freedom of Information request made by retired engineer and speed camera critic Idris Francis. In them, Maher presents findings from his analysis of casualty data for hundreds of fixed camera sites in the capital.
Maher did find evidence to support the effectiveness of the capital’s red light enforcement cameras.
Idris Francis said:
A toxic combination of incompetent analysis, wishful thinking and utter determination by officials and politicians alike not to admit that they have been wrong all along has led to that rare beast, a £300m a year countrywide industry with no identifiable end product whatever. This has to stop.
Guybrush said:
Typical of those sort of people in that sort of work area. In my area, the fools responsible for making traffic congestion worse by adding pointless traffic islands and pinch points etc. display similar pig-headed stupidity; money wasted, accidents increased, couple of fatals too and they won't admit they've made a mistake. Their jobs are secure, they have power way beyond their ability and we all suffer.
Which reminds me of Suffolk some time ago, imposing blanket speed limit reductions. Road fatalities promptly increased. A coroner at inquest attributed some blame for road deaths he was presiding over to unnecessarily slow speed limits. I recall Suffolk's response was to pay some academics to produce a computer model which confirmed that their roads were in fact safer. Such people have the power to avoid reality and facts impacting on their false belief systems.Guybrush said:
Typical of those sort of people in that sort of work area. In my area, the fools responsible for making traffic congestion worse by adding pointless traffic islands and pinch points etc. display similar pig-headed stupidity; money wasted, accidents increased, couple of fatals too and they won't admit they've made a mistake. Their jobs are secure, they have power way beyond their ability and we all suffer.
The worst current example of this is the 'deleted' dual carriageway bypass by Dolgellau. Notwithstanding that a dual carriageway is a rare treat in those parts to SAFELY get past road slugs and artics the deletion with paint of the second lane immediately led to increased fatalities - 23 May 2014. Was their solution to realise a mistake and put it back as it was? No chance... After a few more deaths they put two sets of traffic lights there to halt traffic by the 2 junctions. Often these lights fail as the batteries deplete... Saw a chap sail through a set the other day that would have been showing red - should they have been juiced.Just reams of links on the issue:
https://www.facebook.com/A470-SOS-Dolgellau-139018...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wale...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wale...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grieving-fami...
They plan to put a roundabout in in 2017... Furious isn't a word that really begins to express my contempt for these idiotic people who have to be seen to be doing something or generally reducing something. And I haven't lost anyone here either
Driver mistakes clearly cause the crashes but when there were two lanes the 1st lane acted as a slip road and safety space - they took it away and made it all worse.
Ken Figenus said:
I've every sympathy for their loss, but that's just bloody stupid.Why people feel the need to put flowers by a bit of tarmac I'll never know.
I would urge people to read Professor Mike Maher's report, or at least read the articles in Local Transport Today. The report uses the Four Time Periods method and it is probably the most accurate official analysis of speed cameras to date.
https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-t...
I would like Transport for London (TfL) to clarify their position. Have they failed to understand the report, or are they just refusing to acknowledge the conclusions and act on them? Either way, citizens may ask whether Transport for London are a fit and proper body to be responsible for public safety?
Remember that the government have introduced a new rule that authorities must publish "the impact of speed cameras on road safety". TfL must therefore do this but what are the penalties if they don't? TfL could. of course, take the simplest and cheapest option of all, just run all their speed cameras within scientific trials. Surely the public have a right to expect such an evidence-led approach when it's their lives at stake?
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...
https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-t...
I would like Transport for London (TfL) to clarify their position. Have they failed to understand the report, or are they just refusing to acknowledge the conclusions and act on them? Either way, citizens may ask whether Transport for London are a fit and proper body to be responsible for public safety?
Remember that the government have introduced a new rule that authorities must publish "the impact of speed cameras on road safety". TfL must therefore do this but what are the penalties if they don't? TfL could. of course, take the simplest and cheapest option of all, just run all their speed cameras within scientific trials. Surely the public have a right to expect such an evidence-led approach when it's their lives at stake?
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...
Type R Tom said:
I don’t have too much of a problem with cameras in ultra-urban environment (out in the sticks a completely different ball game) particularly for the enforcement of 30mph speed limits, which there are plenty of in London.
TfL’s roads are a bit of a mix with 70/60mph down to 20mph, enforcing the high speeds I’m not so happy about but at the other end of the spectrum forcing vehicle to abide by the speed limit on Oxford Street (as an example) isn’t a bad thing in my opinion.
Have you been to Oxford Street? TFL should be looking at how to get traffic moving at faster than walking pace. TfL’s roads are a bit of a mix with 70/60mph down to 20mph, enforcing the high speeds I’m not so happy about but at the other end of the spectrum forcing vehicle to abide by the speed limit on Oxford Street (as an example) isn’t a bad thing in my opinion.
Dave Finney said:
I would urge people to read Professor Mike Maher's report, or at least read the articles in Local Transport Today. The report uses the Four Time Periods method and it is probably the most accurate official analysis of speed cameras to date.
https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-t...
I would like Transport for London (TfL) to clarify their position. Have they failed to understand the report, or are they just refusing to acknowledge the conclusions and act on them? Either way, citizens may ask whether Transport for London are a fit and proper body to be responsible for public safety?
A perfectly reasonable question in the circumstances, with one answer more likely than the other.https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-t...
I would like Transport for London (TfL) to clarify their position. Have they failed to understand the report, or are they just refusing to acknowledge the conclusions and act on them? Either way, citizens may ask whether Transport for London are a fit and proper body to be responsible for public safety?
One reason why TfL may not clarify their position, and in so doing continue to assert their (untenable) position over Maher's evidential refutation of it, is that to do so may well invite class action lawsuits in today's increasingly litigious no-win no-fee environment. These would be costly to defend. If errors of judgement and then strategy were admitted then those injured, and the relatives of those killed, on TfL's roads may decide to argue their viewpoint in Court that TfL acted negligently in the way it pursued a flawed road safety strategy and in so doing contributed to injuries and deaths.
turbobloke said:
A perfectly reasonable question in the circumstances, with one answer more likely than the other.
One reason why TfL may not clarify their position, and in so doing continue to assert their (untenable) position over Maher's evidential refutation of it, is that to do so may well invite class action lawsuits in today's increasingly litigious no-win no-fee environment. These would be costly to defend. If errors of judgement and then strategy were admitted then those injured, and the relatives of those killed, on TfL's roads may decide to argue their viewpoint in Court that TfL acted negligently in the way it pursued a flawed road safety strategy and in so doing contributed to injuries and deaths.
Road layout is rarely (if ever) the sole contributory factor in a collisions. Are you implying the cameras have increased collisions at sites or that the money should have been spent elsewhere? If so where? One reason why TfL may not clarify their position, and in so doing continue to assert their (untenable) position over Maher's evidential refutation of it, is that to do so may well invite class action lawsuits in today's increasingly litigious no-win no-fee environment. These would be costly to defend. If errors of judgement and then strategy were admitted then those injured, and the relatives of those killed, on TfL's roads may decide to argue their viewpoint in Court that TfL acted negligently in the way it pursued a flawed road safety strategy and in so doing contributed to injuries and deaths.
Dave Finney said:
TfL could. of course, take the simplest and cheapest option of all, just run all their speed cameras within scientific trials.
From Hitchhiker's GTTG:VROOMFONDEL:
I am Vroomfondel, and that is not a demand! That is a solid fact! What we demand is solid facts!
MAJIKTHISE:
No we don’t! That’s precisely what we don’t demand.
VROOMFONDEL:
Oh.We don’t demand solid fact! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts! I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff