RE: Do speed cameras cause accidents?
Wednesday 18th May 2005
An accident waiting to happen?Do speed cameras cause accidents? The Department of Transport is launch an investigation into the matter.
Do speed cameras cause accidents?
Government to probe the effects of speed cameras
An accident waiting to happen?
In official-speak, "there is a need to establish the broader effects of speed cameras away from the specific camera sites, and in particular to investigate whether the use of speed cameras causes a migration of accidents to other locations. The research would investigate accidents and speeds at locations away from camera sites by direct observations and by assessing both exposure and changes in risk.
"Research is also needed to demonstrate whether improvements in safety performance at speed camera sites arises from the presence of the cameras, or from their deployment at accident cluster locations where safety performance could be expected to improve without treatment: the 'regression to mean effect'."
The department is inviting consulting firms to tender for the work, with a contract due to run for an initial period of two years. The issue has to be why it's taken so long for the government to ask this question.
Road safety campaign Safe Speed said it has been highlighting dangerous side effects from speed cameras and 'speed kills' road safety policy for years.
Campaign founder Paul Smith said, "It's good to see a move towards proper understanding of the issues surrounding speed cameras, but this is far too little and far too late. The research was required before the large scale introduction of speed cameras. Not only that but we shouldn't expect to see the results of this urgent research until 2008."
Smith said, "Are we going to allow roads safety policy to focus on the wrong issues and totally miss the target for another three years while the DfT are still wedded to their speed camera dreams? It's time for a divorce, and although it may be painful, the DfT must face up to the fact that speed cameras don't make the roads safer.
"I don't believe we'll be able to get road safety back on track until all speed cameras are in their rightful place - they should be in the scrap yard", said Smith.
Discussion
Why is the Department "inviting consulting firms to tender for the work, with a contract due to run for an initial period of two years".
Surely there's plenty of existing data on where scameras are located and where accidents have occurred since they've been there. Why can't this data be analysed NOW and the whole process accelerated? After all, this is about SAFETY and surely anything that can be done to improve it NOW is better than waiting for years...
Oops, silly me. They wouldn't want to be too hasty with cutting off that revenue stream, would they. Best string it out the process for a few years.
Surely there's plenty of existing data on where scameras are located and where accidents have occurred since they've been there. Why can't this data be analysed NOW and the whole process accelerated? After all, this is about SAFETY and surely anything that can be done to improve it NOW is better than waiting for years...
Oops, silly me. They wouldn't want to be too hasty with cutting off that revenue stream, would they. Best string it out the process for a few years.
The other issue is they have to find a consulting firm who will give them the right answer. I cannot see Paul Smith making the short list on that one, even though his qualification for the job is second to none. No what they want is a firm who will employ easily swayed people who will conclude what they want concluded. So have a look who donated to Labour or is supported by labour, and then you will have the short list, then who hates cars and there is the winner, so when will Mary start!
Regarding speed cameras. I don't wish to diverse too far from the thread. Does anyone know how much of the revenue from cameras goes to the police force? I read an article recently stating that the police force now has a third less traffic officers! So where does the money go?
>> Edited by silverfox1 on Wednesday 18th May 11:40
>> Edited by silverfox1 on Wednesday 18th May 12:08
>> Edited by silverfox1 on Wednesday 18th May 11:40
>> Edited by silverfox1 on Wednesday 18th May 12:08
daver said:
Why is the Department "inviting consulting firms to tender for the work, with a contract due to run for an initial period of two years".
Surely there's plenty of existing data on where scameras are located and where accidents have occurred since they've been there. Why can't this data be analysed NOW and the whole process accelerated? After all, this is about SAFETY and surely anything that can be done to improve it NOW is better than waiting for years...
Oops, silly me. They wouldn't want to be too hasty with cutting off that revenue stream, would they. Best string it out the process for a few years.
Ah, the wonderful world of management consulting....
A lot of the previous work has been carried out by PA Consulting and they have justified much of their work by acting as both statistician and supplier. In fact much of what they do now is a justification of what they recommended previously.
Much of the current camera guidelines and recommendations come from PA and of course their findings come out in favour of their use. They might not make them, but they sure as hell profit from their use.
Naturally they will be tendering for this work and of course it will find in favour of the cameras. They are independant at the end of the day? Arent they?
Conflict of interest and a self-perpetuating cycle of abuse of their position IMHO. There is NO CHANCE they will find against their own findings previously. And the powers that contracted them originally sleep well as they got an "independant" view on it....
Its a big con and I just hope the public sees through it.
Don't forget, the other answer to be produced by this consultative effort could be:
1. introducing speed cameras to an area in which accidents have occured can show an improvement in statistics for that site
2. accidents do occur at other sites, where there are no speed cameras installed
3. therefore, installing speed cameras EVERYWHERE will solve this
Can I have my two-year fee now please?
I promise to write a longer report, but it will still come out with this conclusion for your department...
1. introducing speed cameras to an area in which accidents have occured can show an improvement in statistics for that site
2. accidents do occur at other sites, where there are no speed cameras installed
3. therefore, installing speed cameras EVERYWHERE will solve this
Can I have my two-year fee now please?
I promise to write a longer report, but it will still come out with this conclusion for your department...
daver said:
Why is the Department "inviting consulting firms to tender for the work, with a contract due to run for an initial period of two years".
Who cares - work's a bit slack at the moment so do any other underemployed PHers fancy getting together to form a 'consulting firm'?
Bound to be an easy way to make a shed load of money at the taxpayers' expense over the next two years...
said:
In official-speak, "there is a need to establish the broader effects of speed cameras away from the specific camera sites, and in particular to investigate whether the use of speed cameras causes a migration of accidents to other locations.
If not the cameras have done their job.
said:
The research would investigate accidents and speeds at locations away from camera sites by direct observations and by assessing both exposure and changes in risk.
Catch 1 person over the speed limit = necessity for another speed camera (SPECS anyone?)
said:Are not all speed cameras in accident cluster sites? Surely a camera would not be set-up where accidents don't occur? How can you say safety has improved "without treatment" if cameras are "deployed at accident cluster locations"? Are cameras not a treatment to road accidents? If not, what are they for?
"Research is also needed to demonstrate whether improvements in safety performance at speed camera sites arises from the presence of the cameras, or from their deployment at accident cluster locations where safety performance could be expected to improve without treatment: the 'regression to mean effect'."
This is what I think is happening…as well as wasting money and time (as pointed out by other members)….
Number of fixed cameras is bound to reduce for various reasons, bad publicity and radar effectiveness being some of them, but they will be more than just replaced by the mobile cameras in the vans and bikes.
The report is going to say that yes, fixed cameras are no good, therefore we are replacing them with mobile cameras because they are safer….as it actually says on the side of the van – “Safety Camera”
So what they are trying to do is to justify their actions in advance by conducting this study (quite crafty and sneaky actually!). They might also be cheeky enough to say that they have listened to motorist’s views and opinions and that’s why they have conducted the survey and hence changed their speed camera tactics
Unfortunately, mobile cameras are a bit more of a surprise to us motorists and radar detectors are not as effective against them (for which there are plans to ban anyway)
So undoubtedly, the change of speed cameras will be even more profitable for them….but they definitely will not be cheeky enough to mention the last bit
…..but I might be wrong
Number of fixed cameras is bound to reduce for various reasons, bad publicity and radar effectiveness being some of them, but they will be more than just replaced by the mobile cameras in the vans and bikes.
The report is going to say that yes, fixed cameras are no good, therefore we are replacing them with mobile cameras because they are safer….as it actually says on the side of the van – “Safety Camera”
So what they are trying to do is to justify their actions in advance by conducting this study (quite crafty and sneaky actually!). They might also be cheeky enough to say that they have listened to motorist’s views and opinions and that’s why they have conducted the survey and hence changed their speed camera tactics
Unfortunately, mobile cameras are a bit more of a surprise to us motorists and radar detectors are not as effective against them (for which there are plans to ban anyway)
So undoubtedly, the change of speed cameras will be even more profitable for them….but they definitely will not be cheeky enough to mention the last bit
…..but I might be wrong
arcbeer said:
said:
In official-speak, "there is a need to establish the broader effects of speed cameras away from the specific camera sites, and in particular to investigate whether the use of speed cameras causes a migration of accidents to other locations.
If not the cameras have done their job.
Accidents are random events therefore there is no migration and no relationship to camera sites. Overall KSIs are up, and total accidents up since cameras were proliferated.
arcbeer said:
said:
The research would investigate accidents and speeds at locations away from camera sites by direct observations and by assessing both exposure and changes in risk.
Catch 1 person over the speed limit = necessity for another speed camera (SPECS anyone?)
Certain minimum numbers are required to justify a camera, more than one. In fact the original requirements were for the 85th %ile to be in excess of the speed limit.
arcbeer said:
said:
"Research is also needed to demonstrate whether improvements in safety performance at speed camera sites arises from the presence of the cameras, or from their deployment at accident cluster locations where safety performance could be expected to improve without treatment: the 'regression to mean effect'."
Are not all speed cameras in accident cluster sites? Surely a camera would not be set-up where accidents don't occur? How can you say safety has improved "without treatment" if cameras are "deployed at accident cluster locations"? Are cameras not a treatment to road accidents? If not, what are they for?
Cameras are set up at revenue generating sites, some do happen to have a relationship to accidents, others not. For example how can a brand new road have a four-year history of accidents? Yet still cameras are installed.
Cameras are purely for revenue generation, they have not been proved to achieve anything else, except perhaps increase accidents.
>> Edited by kevinday on Wednesday 18th May 15:17
yes im very bitter about speed cameras indeed id agree with huge signs saying 'accident black-spot, speed cameras ahead' or '3 deaths in 1 year, speed cameras ahead please slow down' at least this gives a driver time to slow down and their also given a reason rather than just zapping u on a bend or tucked away in a white van behind some huge bush, thats not saving lives only fueling the fire and making the motorist more bitter towards the police it really upsets me to see a van pulled up with the camera rigged up the driver is sat in the front seat with his flask and a pasty id much rather those same officers to be 'on the beat' where i feel real crime is, like that poor young mother and the knife attack or the young school girl in the news recently i know they cant be everywhere and the traffic police are a different department but i know what id prefer to see..more officers on teh beat or more white vans!! and yes uninsured nutters and hit and runs, silly speeds in resedential ares are bad but the little old lady doin 34 in a 30 going to get her persription before the chemist closes is craaaazzyyyyyyy!!
Slightly off-topic but how many of you think, as I do that I'm definately not as safe a driver as I was before fixed cameras appeared.
Instead of driving instinctivly at the safe speed for the road & traffic conditions, concentrating 100% on the road, I now find myself constantly scanning the middle distance for cameras too.
These cameras make me drive in a way that worries me a bit and as an ex advanced instructor for 15 years I really feel my driving has suffered in an adverse way.
Anyone else feel this way?
Instead of driving instinctivly at the safe speed for the road & traffic conditions, concentrating 100% on the road, I now find myself constantly scanning the middle distance for cameras too.
These cameras make me drive in a way that worries me a bit and as an ex advanced instructor for 15 years I really feel my driving has suffered in an adverse way.
Anyone else feel this way?
dugsud said:
Slightly off-topic but how many of you think, as I do that I'm definately not as safe a driver as I was before fixed cameras appeared.
Instead of driving instinctivly at the safe speed for the road & traffic conditions, concentrating 100% on the road, I now find myself constantly scanning the middle distance for cameras too.
These cameras make me drive in a way that worries me a bit and as an ex advanced instructor for 15 years I really feel my driving has suffered in an adverse way.
Anyone else feel this way?
Yes I tend to agree with you in general.
I object to having to bother about looking for fixed cameras, but the sneakily placed mobile ones can be even more of a problem. Our attention should be concentrated on spotting and dealing with the real hazards and using speeds that are appropriate from that viewpoint.
I'm not sure that my driving has actually suffered, but it is an additional burden that we could do without.
Any minute now someone will remind us we could just stick to the speed limit! On reflection - no, I don't think I fancy that idea much.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
dugsud said:
Slightly off-topic but how many of you think, as I do that I'm definately not as safe a driver as I was before fixed cameras appeared.
Instead of driving instinctivly at the safe speed for the road & traffic conditions, concentrating 100% on the road, I now find myself constantly scanning the middle distance for cameras too.
These cameras make me drive in a way that worries me a bit and as an ex advanced instructor for 15 years I really feel my driving has suffered in an adverse way.
Anyone else feel this way?
Definitely. Having to constantly watch out for the bloody things instead of concentrating 100% on driving is a dangerous distraction.
If they were really bothered about increasing safety they'd ditch speed camras in favour of those illuminated boards as these can genuinely alert you to potential hazards ahead, such as a sharp bend or blind junction.
Have some like that round my way. A real road safety aid - unlike some shitheads in a scamera van parked on (or on bridges over) nice straight stretches.
Couldnt agree more, Even when I'm not speeding the effort to monitor your speed to suit the limit in force irrespective of traffic/weather conditions is tiring and distractive.
I'm glad Im not the only one who seems to be aware of spending an inordinate ammount of time scanning for cameras, tell tale marks on the road etc, this is looking ahead which is in itself a good thing but tends to cut the ammount of attention given to the verges and pavements where folk are likely to come from.
It Will NEVER happen,, but I would love for all motorists to say spend one full week keeping exactlty at the limit, now that would be some protest. the country would grind to a halt. but how long could cash cameras keep going if they earnt nothing?
Sorry for rant
Mike
I'm glad Im not the only one who seems to be aware of spending an inordinate ammount of time scanning for cameras, tell tale marks on the road etc, this is looking ahead which is in itself a good thing but tends to cut the ammount of attention given to the verges and pavements where folk are likely to come from.
It Will NEVER happen,, but I would love for all motorists to say spend one full week keeping exactlty at the limit, now that would be some protest. the country would grind to a halt. but how long could cash cameras keep going if they earnt nothing?
Sorry for rant
Mike
I think I'll tender for the job and then just submit Paul's site 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff