Letter from MP

[Chrisgr31]

Back in the days when I used to be a lurker here I decided that action was better than reading, I therefore joined the ABD and I also used the Fax Your MP website to fax my MP about a number of things including speed cameras.

He passed my letter to speed cameras to the DOT and before Xmas he forwarded their reply, asking for my comments. I haven't got round to replying yet, and any thoughts are welcomed.

The DoTs response was

1. Excessive and inappropriate speed is the biggest contributory factor in accidents and this is clearly supported by the TRL Report 323 "A New System for Reporting Contributory Factors in Road Accident". Speed is apparently identified as a separate factor in 15% of accidents, when an allowance is made for all other speed dependant factors the contribution is higher.

2. Safety Camera enforcement is just one way to control speed, and the Police may use other means and frequently stop drivers to offer advice about speed without prosecuting.

3. Research and experience continue to confirm that excessive and inappropriate speed is a major contributory factor in collisions that cause death and injury. Speed cameras have proved to be highly effective at reducing speeding and when sited at dangerous sites or along problem routes have reduced the number of those killed seriously injured by up to 47%.


My view is that more accidents have inattntion as a primary factor rather than speeding. By definition if everyone paid attention accidents wouldn't happen. People wouldn't be going too fast round corners, people would overtake whentraffic coming the other way, people wouldn't pull out in front of other vehicles, people wouldn't drive in to back of other vehicles etc. It seems to me that inattention by someone will be a factor in all accidents except those caused by mechanical failure or an animal. Therefore we need more police on the road to spot those not paying attention!

I don't know about the figures but inappropriate speed is not the same as breaking the speedlimit. One can drive down the road at 50 in sheet ice. A speed camera might not catch them if the limit was 50, but when they crashed speed would be blamed.

I can't recall the last time I saw a Policeman standing beside the road with a radar gun. Whilst it might be annoying to be stopped by a policeman with radar at least you know you have the chance to get off, driver education is immediate, and not a nagging fury like a camera, especiallly if one can't recall going through it!

In saying that cameras "when sited" at dangerous sites reduce casulties it rather implies that they are not always sited at dangerous sites. I seem to recall that cameras would only be installed where there was a problem?

Anyway anyone got any extra points I cam make, or know where I can find figures to support a case that cameras don't stop accidents reduce speed etc.

Thanks

Chris

[dimmadan]

You can ask for a non-confidential accident report from your local council, for a particular area or stretch of road, you will get the previous 36 months accident stats, giving time, etc weather conditions, but not why etc. Maybe info further back too. What you really need is the confidential report, not usually issued to members of the public, only safety engineers etc, which will say why accidents happened. If you know someone inside a highway authority then this may be possible.....there may also be info on accients at speed camera site separately.
For London there is the LAAU (london accident analysist unit) may be more forthcoming with information..amazing the amount of facts and figures they have...www.lho.org.uk/hil/transport.htm#laau

[mybrainhurts]

Chris, the reply you received is the standard reply to all requests for information.

They just read your letter until they get to the word camera, click, and you get that reply.

Try asking specific questions, or repeating your questions, or asking for the detail behind that 47%

Be persistent, you deserve an individual reply to specific questions.

Next time I write, I will copy the standard reply into my letter and refer to it, stating that I don't want that reply again.

[Size Nine Elm]

The interpretation of the TRL323 report is the standard 'one third lie' response - look at the ABD website for the conversion of 7% into 30+%.

TRL323 finds 7% of accidents related to speed. The pro-camera, anti-car brigade then take two views on this; one it to take lots of other factors and claim they are speed related, which 'shows' the one-third figure, while at the same time, they claim that the report is not valid since it was an investigation into a method of reporting factors, and not a report on the factors themselves.

Better figures are the West Midlands police statistics, reported year on year, on real accident figures, which repeatedly show speed-related accidents to be in the low single-figure percentages.

(Can't find the link for this, will post later).

[mybrainhurts]

Try www.ringroad.org.uk