Roadworks Cameras Bombshell

[safespeed]

Following a recent Freedom of Information request, and a careful review of the materials supplied, Safe Speed issued the following PR at 02:52 this morning:

[b]PR228: TRL says speed cameras useless at motorway roadworks[/b]

News: for immediate release

Safe Speed issued a Freedom of Information request to the DfT on July 5th
regarding motorway roadworks safety. The results have just been published.
One document makes it crystal clear that speed cameras have no influence on
the rate of injury.

In a study carried out for the Highways Agency by TRL Limited and published in
2004 it is revealed that roads works are no more dangerous than open motorways
and that speed cameras have no effect on accident rates.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "When this sort of information is available, why
are camera partnerships allowed to continue to fleece motorists with no safety
benefit?"

"It is outrageous that partnerships continue to operate speed cameras in
motorway roadworks claiming that they are required to 'protect the workforce',
when science clearly tells us that motorway road works are not specially
dangerous and speed cameras don't help at all."

"The greedy camera partnerships frequently lie to us about the 'benefits' of
speed cameras. False information in road safety costs lives because it causes
life saving resources are misallocated. The partnerships must be disbanded
because they are working against the long term interests of road safety. They
are 21st century snake oil salesmen."

"Why on earth does it take the Freedom of Information act to uncover important
information like this?"

TRL Report says: "The study showed that there was no significant difference in
the rate of PIAs (Personal Injury Accidents) when road works were present on
the motorway."

TRL Report says: "No significant difference was observed in the PIA rate for
sites with and without speed cameras."

<ends>


Notes for editors:
==================

DfT Page regarding Safe Speed's Freedom of Information Request:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/divisionhomepage/039530.hcsp

TRL Report summary containing quotes above:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/page/dft_foi_039535.pdf

[puggit]

That is a bombshell!

I think most of us would agree that speed limits are valid in roadworks, and that the cameras are there to enforce safety. Normally short thrift is given to those coming on this forum and bleating about being caught in the roadworks...

However, the recent move to 40mph limits rigourously enforced, compared to the historic 50mph limits with erratic enforcement, has always smelt fishy.

[Don]

The salient point of the report is that accident rates are no worse in motorway roadworks than they are on the rest of the motorway now...and that there is a only tiny difference in Fatal and Serious Injury accidents at roadworks equipped with cameras (1%). This would appear to me not to be statistically significant.

But could this be because most drivers now drive through roadworks slowly and carefully anyway because they know that in such locations it is likely that there will be workers at risk?

Or even, for those who don't give a shit about workers, that it is likely that there will be cameras?

Whilst I drive with the same amount of care at all times I do drive purposely within the speed limit in areas I consider "risky" (with respect to detection) and purposely much higher than the speed limit in areas I consider "safe" (both in absolute terms and in terms of detection).

This means I drive through roadworks at the speed limit checking carefully for both workers and cameras happy in the knowledge I will not be contributing to the scamerati's Christmas party fund...

[safespeed]

Don said:

The salient point of the report is that accident rates are no worse in motorway roadworks than they are on the rest of the motorway now...and that there is a only tiny difference in Fatal and Serious Injury accidents at roadworks equipped with cameras (1%). This would appear to me not to be statistically significant.

Damn right it isn't significant, and very oddly, that's a comparison with open motorway. Why didn't they compare it with roadworks with no camera I wonder? Could it be that crashes are slighty up compared to roadworks with no cameras?

It'll cost us £40 to buy the full report and find out.

Meanwhile tens of thousands of us are being fleeced at roadworks around the motorway network.

[timtonal]

I think crashes will be up due to the clumps of speedo-watching motorists across the 3 lanes. Especially alarming yesterday was the HGV edging along my inside whilst I was doing an indicated 42mph. M6 Thelwall had a similar scheme (not been up that way for some time so don't know if its still going on). I kept hearing of lots of accidents happening - not a good advert for SPECS.

Also why has the M1 J21-20 roadworks 40 limit been extended by a couple of miles southbound due to the hard shoulder being coned off but nobody working on it? There are gantries for SPECS but no cameras, yet. I appreciate that this stretch is next to be resurfaced, but surely limit it when the works start, not several weeks in advance.

Bad management through and through.

[safespeed]

Further PR issued at 11:33 this morning:

PR229: Motorway road works speed cameras: legalised extortion

News: for immediate release

Following Safe Speed's revelations earlier today that motorway road works
speed cameras do nothing to improve safety, motorists will be absolutely livid
to learn that they have been fined for no safety benefit.

The TRL report stating with absolute clarity that speed cameras do NOTHING to
improve road works safety on motorways was completed over 18 months ago. The
Highways agency did not make it public and continued to slap up speed cameras
at motorway roadworks sites.

Any member of the public wishing to read the report would have had to pay £40
to do so. Not even a summary has been previously published as far as we can
tell. It took a request under the Freedom of Information Act to dig it up.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Hundreds of thousands of motorists who have been
fined for exceeding the speed limit in roadworks in the last 18 months are
going to be livid. The Highways Agency knew that cameras did nothing for
safety - all they have been doing is spreading misery and raising revenue.
These cameras are legalised extortion - no more and no less."

"This has to stop and it has to stop now. Speed cameras do nothing for safety.
The official claims are bunk. But far worse than that, those claims cause
live-saving resources to be misallocated and cause extra deaths indirectly."

"How dare they keep this information hidden for 18 months. Since the Freedom
of Information Act came into force the wheels are coming off the speed camera
bandwagon. The abuses of information are outrageous and heads must roll."

<ends>


Notes for editors:
==================

Safe Speed PR issued earlier today:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/76

Includes reference to TRL report which includes:

"The study showed that there was no significant difference in the rate of PIAs
(Personal Injury Accidents) when road works were present on the motorway."

"No significant difference was observed in the PIA rate for sites with and
without speed cameras."

========================================

I've had little pickup on either PR so far (which isn't really surprising on a Sunday).

But if anyone has any press or broadcasting contacts AT ALL please send them these two links:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/76
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/77

[turbobloke]

Hmmmm. About the same time this report became available to the authorities, there was a noticeable increase in interactive driver signals in some motorway roadworks sections - one stretch on the M5 that used to have four or five gatsos changed to one gatso and two or three IDS. Regrettably there are still sections with specs cameras (M1, M40), these purely revenue raising instruments of driver oppression should be removed immediately. So it has been shown that m-way roadwork cameras have no safety benefit - which just brings us back to Canada's decision to throw out all forms of automated speed enforcement (photo radar) in two provinces because

- it had no safety benefit
- it was propped up only by a well funded spin machine
- it was arbitrary and heavy handed
- it was a symptom of intrusive big government
- it harmed police-public relations
- recruitment and witness cooperation were hit
- better and more cost-effective approaches are available (our TRL has already shown that IDS have greater safety benefits than speedcams)

Same old over here

[gone]

The report considers only PIA.

It does not include incidents where just minor or major damage was caused. It does not include incidents where drivers exchange details only and deal with liability and blame between themselves.

The fact that people are hurt in RTC's is down to luck and generally the speed of the vehicle with the other objects involved.

Your research does not cover incidents where collisions occur and no official actions result. Therefore you stats are flawed.

You would be better off getting your complete picture from insurance companies and asking all drivers to report incidnets where they settled without any intervention through the law or insurance.

That will be impossible!

Those that read and want to believe your propaganda will be lulled into a false sense of security and ignore the fact that roadworks on fast roads are dangerous places to be regardless of whether there is someone working in them.

What a great sop for road safety

>> Edited by gone on Sunday 7th August 14:34

[turbobloke]

gone said:

The report considers only PIA. It does not include incidents where just minor or major damage was caused.

What utter claptrap gone, you really are excelling yourself. Scumera Pratnerships claim their role is to reduce KSIs, not damage only bumps. Remember?

Anyway as you're a police officer and would never spin, here's a new slogan for any pratnership to use, no fee:

Safety Camera Partnerships - Here to Stop You Getting a Ding and Fine You Senseless (cos we couldn't save a life to save our lives)

Keep up the good work Paul, they're on the ropes and a resorting to claptrap

[chim666]

gone said:

Your research does not cover incidents where collisions occur and no official actions result.

But is it not likely that all if not most Motoway collisions would result in Police attendance, therefore 'official actions' would result?

[safespeed]

gone said:

The report considers only PIA. It does not include incidents where just minor or major damage was caused. It does not include incidents where drivers exchange details only and deal with liability and blame between themselves.

The primary objective of road safety is to prevent injury. Bent metal is far lower down the priority scale. That's why damage onlys aren't required to be reported...

gone said:

What a great sop for road safety

And I thought I told you to stop digging...

[safespeed]

turbobloke said:

Keep up the good work Paul, they're on the ropes and a resorting to claptrap

Yeah...

[LongQ]

gone said:

Your research does not cover incidents where collisions occur and no official actions result. Therefore you stats are flawed. You would be better off getting your complete picture from insurance companies and asking all drivers to report incidnets where they settled without any intervention through the law or insurance. That will be impossible!

Not only impossible but hugely unreliable from a data point of view. No way would that be acceptable as a basis for informing policy.

I don't think anyone here would argue that speed limits in roadworks per se are a waste of time, especially where narrow lanes are involved. The requirement and advice are sensible and the majority of drivers take note.

However if the TRL - NOTE TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY - find little or no evidence of a change in the risk whether cameras are in place or not the I would assume that the normal ratios incident level would apply throughout the range of collision types, so non-injury accidents would run at the same rate with or without camera enforcement, everything else being equal.

Of course everything else may not be equal, especially on motorways, where particularly narrow lanes might be in temporary use - but that is an entirely different risk assessment factor.

If there is no additional risk when camera enforcement is not used what possible excuse can there be for spending significant amount on setting up SPECS systems that operate relentlessly 24/7 even when traffic is light and there are few if any workers around?

In my view the most dangerous road worker job by far must be setting out and collecting the signs and cones, especially at the beginning of the closure and the end of the closure. But that period is brief and would not be economically viable for scamera deployment. However it is was to be shown that the traffic related injuries to road workers were mostly connected to that phase of activity it would become very clear that the scameras were deployed for purposes unrelated to safety. So that would be another lie used to mislead the public and raise our expectations of being kept in thrall.

One of the few bit of TV I saw last week was a program with Richard Hammond which looked at how parents felt about the MMR vaccine scare. Now it was clear that many people had been spooked into a distrust of science on the matter. Indeed a distrust of science overall I suspect - which is why people's belief systems kick in about MMR, mobile Phone masts, radiation risk, GM crops and our old friend Climate Change.

The point was that in a survey (yep, I know, dodgy in itself) only 1% of the respondees indicated that they trusted government published information about scientific matters. ONE PERCENT. Even if inreality that was 10 percent it would be appalling. (Still, it is nice to infer that 99% of the population thing human induced global warming is a rubbish theory.)

So maybe they don't believe the scamera hype either.

In any year there are a fixed number - a few hundred thousand - parents who face the MMR question and most accept the advice. Most NEED to accept the advice or the entire exercise becomes pointless.

But for speed cameras millions of people face the consequences of fairly minor errors of speed assessment daily. If they all disbelieve the government advice that will be a lot of very annoyed people.

In the case of MMR they can bitch about the NHS. The NHS will waffle about lack funds or resources or whatever and the public will simply be pissed off that their tax is being used badly. The NHS does still, mostly, provide them with some sort of service when required.

In the case of speed enforcement the buffer between the public and the governmet is not some faceless bureaucracy. It is the police force of the area concerned and by implication some of the disbelief directed at the government will also rub off on the police. The difference is that the NHS is a relatively passive organisation for the most part whereas the police are expected to be active in a more personal way. The police also have power and authority that is not available to the NHS and often point aout that they require the trust and co-operation of the population to be able to function effectively.

Any organisation seen by the masses as the submissive mouthpiece of lying government will surely be viewed with great suspicion. There are some activities where that might be unavoidable - for operational reasons. So be it, some latitude will be provided in the right circumstances. But whether supporting potentially flawed policy and suppression of reports which do not support the 'cause' will be acceptable to the population and somehow not lead to an inate distrust of the whole police 'business', remains to be seen.

It strikes me there are two ways to resolve the situation. One involves regaining the trust of the people to at least a sustainable extent. The other maybe goes the opposite direction and ever more thoroughly subjugates the people in some form of policed state.

The latter is probably the easier route to take, but which would we all prefer?

[turbobloke]

The ABD said:

A study published by the Transport Research laboratory, but not released to the public, has found that speed cameras do not make roadworks safer - for either workers or drivers. The news comes soon after road safety group the Association of British Drivers discovered that speeding is not a significant cause of motorway crashes. The study, published in 2004 but not publicised or promoted shows clearly that "No significant difference was observed in the accident rate for sites with and without speed cameras." In other words, speed cameras do not save lives in roadworks. The report was exposed using the Freedom of Information Act, by SafeSpeed's Paul Smith. It comes after the Association of British Drivers discovered data showing that driver inattention, not speed, was the lead cause of motorway crashes. Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD's Road Safety Spokesman commented "Here is yet more data dug out using the FoI Act showing that cameras do not save lives and that speed is not a major cause of crashes. How much more do we need to see before the camera partnerships are disbanded and we can return to effective road safety policies?" Brian Gregory, the ABD's Chairman, said "This is rapidly becoming a farce. Time and again we have to drag information out of camera partnerships - damaging information they'd rather keep in the dark. There is a culture of spin and secrecy that hides the true causes of crashes and the total lack of effectiveness of speed cameras from the public. It's time the Partnerships were made accountable"

[gone]

chim666 said:

gone said: Your research does not cover incidents where collisions occur and no official actions result. But is it not likely that all if not most Motoway collisions would result in Police attendance, therefore 'official actions' would result?

You do not understand the way it works. Police may attend. They may drag wreckage out of the road. If no one is hurt and parties do not make allegations, then no official report is made. Many incidents are dealt with without being recorded, especially if there is just damage.

It is safer/quicker/more efficient on fast roads to remove the problem and get rid of it quickly than to stand around interviewing drivers who would rather not wait for 18 months before an allegation is heard by a court.Insurance companies fail to settle until after that case has been heard and someone convicted. Drivers of damaged cars want compensation quickly. They do not want to go through the lengthy legal process of criminal court to get that decision made for them.

Where damage alone is concerned most collisions are dealt with without being recored unless a driver insists on making allegations about blame or the officer involved in attending thinks there is some serious driving issues to be addressed.

[gone]

safespeed said:

The primary objective of road safety is to prevent injury. Bent metal is far lower down the priority scale. That's why damage onlys aren't required to be reported... gone said: What a great sop for road safety And I thought I told you to stop digging...

It is you my confused friend who should stop digging and look at what really happens instead of pawing over unrealistic data

Damage onlys are only damage onlys largely down to luck. Usually when speeds are far lower than they are higher. The higher the speed, the more likely the injury.

Ask any owner of a Porsche, TVR or even a Proton if damage is way down the list of priorities!

The primary objective for road safety is to stop people running into anything at all and therefore avoiding the chance that someone may be hurt. Bent metal means impact which means a chance of injury.
That saves money both in lost time, increases efficiency and you've guessed it, saves going to hospital to get patched up.

Bent metal is fine according to safespeed. I hope you publish this little gem the next time you go live on the media and on your site


Oh deary deary me. Now I understand where you are coming from. Its fine to smash into each other as long as technology stops you having to use a band aid!!!



Your whole ethos is flawed. The really sad thing is that you are persisting to try to convince people who know nothing other than how to pass an inadequate driving test and spend a few quid getting their lap times down at the weekends.

Your site should be re named safespin

>> Edited by gone on Sunday 7th August 17:17

[turbobloke]

Motorway Roadworks Speed Cameras

"There To Help Drivers Lose Weight"

sixty pounds to be precise

[gone]

LongQ said:

gone said: Your research does not cover incidents where collisions occur and no official actions result. Therefore you stats are flawed. You would be better off getting your complete picture from insurance companies and asking all drivers to report incidnets where they settled without any intervention through the law or insurance. That will be impossible! Not only impossible but hugely unreliable from a data point of view. No way would that be acceptable as a basis for informing policy.

Why?

Is it not expensive and inconvenient to have to have your vehicle rebuilt or scrapped and replaced?
Is it not expensive to sit in stationary traffic when some inadequate observation leads to a motorway gridlock, even for a few minutes whilst the road is cleared.

Surely this data would be useful to support policy that in areas of significant increased actual and potential danger, there is a positive need to restrict the behaviour of those who have little self control or little concept of the dangers and inconvenience that they put each other in day after day when in that invironment.

[safespeed]

gone said:

safespeed said: The primary objective of road safety is to prevent injury. Bent metal is far lower down the priority scale. That's why damage onlys aren't required to be reported... gone said: What a great sop for road safety And I thought I told you to stop digging... It is you my confused friend who should stop digging and look at what really happens instead of pawing over unrealistic data Damage onlys are only damage onlys largely down to luck. Usually when speeds are far lower than they are higher. The higher the speed, the more likely the injury. Ask any owner of a Porsche, TVR or even a Proton if damage is way down the list of priorities! The primary objective for road safety is to stop people running into anything at all and therefore avoiding the chance that someone may be hurt. Bent metal means impact which means a chance of injury. That saves money both in lost time, increases efficiency and you've guessed it, saves going to hospital to get patched up. Bent metal is fine according to safespeed. I hope you publish this little gem the next time you go live on the media and on your site Oh deary deary me. Now I understand where you are coming from. Its fine to smash into each other as long as technology stops you having to use a band aid!!! Your whole ethos is flawed. The really sad thing is that you are persisting to try to convince people who know nothing other than how to pass an inadequate driving test and spend a few quid getting their lap times down at the weekends. Your site should be re named safespin >> Edited by gone on Sunday 7th August 17:17

You are being tiresome, and proving yourself a fool. I've invited you to stop digging but you refuse.

The OBJECTIVE of road safety is to save lives and injury.

Good road safety STRATEGIES achieve this objective by working at the bottom layer of the 'accident triangle' (as per Heinrich et al).

Any effective policy is likely to reduce near misses, damage onlys, and the various classes of injury crash in similar proportion.

Safe Speed policies are very carefully crafted to build on existing road safety strengths.

[deeps]

gone said:

Oh deary deary me. Now I understand where you are coming from. Its fine to smash into each other as long as technology stops you having to use a band aid!!! Your whole ethos is flawed. The really sad thing is that you are persisting to try to convince people who know nothing other than how to pass an inadequate driving test and spend a few quid getting their lap times down at the weekends. Your site should be re named safespin >> Edited by gone on Sunday 7th August 17:17

That hole is getting bigger...

One of the few posts of straw clutching desperation I have seen Gone make