RE: MPs ignore speed camera reality
Wednesday 1st November 2006
MPs miss the pointFollowing the publication yesterday of the UK House of Commons Transport Committee report on roads policing, safety campaign Safe Speed slammed the authors for "failing to understand the road safety evidence surrounding speed cameras."
MPs ignore speed camera reality
Report shows evidence on speed jettisoned in favour of dogma
MPs miss the point
According to campaign founder Paul Smith, "a proper examination of the figures indicates without doubt that speed cameras have failed catastrophically as a road safety intervention."
Safe Speed said:
- Claimed benefits at speed camera sites are massively dominated by a statistical bias called 'regression to the mean' (RTTM). The figure quoted by Transport Committee is a large overestimate of benefit and a large underestimate of RTTM.
- Only 1 in 20 crashes involves a vehicle exceeding a speed limit
- Road deaths have not fallen as expected, and Transport Research Laboratory says 'drivers are getting worse'. Safe Speed says that drivers are getting worse because we are giving them false safety information and causing excessive concentration on legal targets rather than safety targets.
- The British Medical Journal reported in June that hospitalisations of road crash victims haven't fallen for a decade.
- Our national fatal accident rate (the number who die on the roads per billion vehicle kilometres driven; the basic measure of 'risk') has departed from its long term reliable downwards trend. If the trend had continued, national annual road deaths would be down to about 2,000 per annum by now. We're 1,200 lives per year behind expectation.
- Responsible drivers do not even need a speedo to drive safely - the sort of speed that they control -- appropriate speed -- is neither controlled nor definable in miles per hour. Just ask whether 30mph is an appropriate speed, and it is clear the question cannot be answered without far more information.
- Irresponsible drivers come in many different forms, and probably 99 per cent of those forms cannot be detected by camera.
- The process of driving is one of 'skilled risk management' and with 200,000 injury crashes each year amongst at least 32 million licensed drivers, risks are by and large extremely well managed. The basic risk of causing an injury crash across the whole system is (32m/200,000) once in 160 years. Yet if a driver shuts his eyes for just 20 seconds a crash is virtually inevitable.
- Speed cameras come with a vast range of side effects, yet none of them have been officially studied even after having them on our roads for 15 years. Safe Speed has a carefully constructed list of 30 negative side effects. These side effects tend to worsen driver quality.
- 'Excessive speed crashes' are actually increasing in the speed camera era. This is no surprise to us, because having an excessive speed crash is a 'driver quality' issue.
- British road safety is currently the slowest improving in Europe (EU15) according to official figures.
- The claim that '20 per cent of child pedestrians die in 30mph impacts' is true, but used in a grossly misleading way, because in the real world impacts are not commonly taking place at free travelling speeds. With around 50 child pedestrian deaths in built up areas annually against some 11,000 cases of injury, it is clear that we are not running into them at 30mph or more. If we were we would have expected at least 2,200 fatalities - a very far cry from the real-world figure of about 50.
Smith said: "Current road safety policy is an unmitigated disaster supported only by dodgy statistics and blind faith. A decent analysis of Department for Transport's own information shows starkly just how badly we are doing. I am shocked that the Transport Committee has not taken the trouble to ensure that it understands the statistics that it quotes.
"If it weren't a serious road safety issue, it would be amusing that there are calls to place cameras where there have been no crashes. Firstly, any valuable road safety intervention should not be wasted on locations where, for whatever reason, crashes are not taking place. It is analogous to claiming that a drug is so good that we should start giving it to healthy patients. Secondly it will destroy what little reputation speed cameras have left, because if you place them where there have been no crashes, then crashes can only go up.
"Speed cameras have failed to make the roads safer. They have replaced valuable life saving policies and concentrated resources on the wrong safety factor. They must now be scrapped."
Links
Discussion
As usual the Government and politicians reckon that if something is not working try again with more.
The same as when they throw money (our money) into say schools and hospitals and they don't get any improvement, throw even more money at them.
The same as we don't get any results out of our politicians, they give THEMSELVES even more money!!!
The same as when they throw money (our money) into say schools and hospitals and they don't get any improvement, throw even more money at them.
The same as we don't get any results out of our politicians, they give THEMSELVES even more money!!!
Edited by NormanD on Wednesday 1st November 12:12
There is a speed camera near my house, as cars approach it, they slow down to 30 mph and as soon as they pass the lines in the road I hear them roar off...so at leat I know that 7 yards of road is safe...if they really want to make things safe why don't they introduce a driving test that you have to take every 10 years... that would help get rid of these pensioners doing 40mph in the middle lane of a motorway which is much more dangerous than a teenager doing 80
I'd like to say a very large thanks to Paul Smith for speaking up for the facts and figures behind scameras, amazing the spin put on the stats by the government.
We will be driving around in electronically governed cars in a few years, so I intend to enjoy myself until then, because after that my modest skills behind the wheel will wither and die, same as everyone else.
So, Thank you Paul.
We will be driving around in electronically governed cars in a few years, so I intend to enjoy myself until then, because after that my modest skills behind the wheel will wither and die, same as everyone else.
So, Thank you Paul.
From what I can tell, it looks as if they're already gearing up to rebrand them as "environment cameras" within the next few years - it's clear the "safety" argument isn't washing quite as cleanly as they'd like with the public.
That they will be hardly any better painted green, and in fact would probably make things worse by introducing artificial brake-accelerate cycles, is another thing entirely.
That they will be hardly any better painted green, and in fact would probably make things worse by introducing artificial brake-accelerate cycles, is another thing entirely.
Note to Paul/Safespeed:
Your point about the number of lives that would have been saved is expressed in "lives per year".
Our national fatal accident rate (the number who die on the roads per billion vehicle kilometres driven; the basic measure of 'risk') has departed from its long term reliable downwards trend. If the trend had continued, national annual road deaths would be down to about 2,000 per annum by now. We're 1,200 lives per year behind expectation.
I daresay the data would be more compelling if you were to illustrate with the cumulative number of lives that would have been saved, rather than the number p.a..
This rhetorical technique has been adopted and employed extensively by Gordon Brown. If it's good enough for the Chancellor's public statements, it should be good enough for the rest of us.
Also, it would be great if someone could shed some light on the commercial influences that bear on road policies.
Devices such as Gatsos, Truvelos, SPECS, and all the rest are pushed upon their clients (SCPs, LAs, etc) by outfits whose raison d'etre is to generate a profit, full stop.
Not infrequently, these commercial outfits are run by former civil servants who saw a great commercial opportunity to go to the private sector and exploit the system that they learned from the inside.
If the public think that decisions about what "safety devices" to purchase and how to deploy them are made by disnterested, objective experts who are immune from lobbying and other pressures from the commercially self-interested, they should also be looking forward to a visit from the Easter Bunny.
Your point about the number of lives that would have been saved is expressed in "lives per year".
Our national fatal accident rate (the number who die on the roads per billion vehicle kilometres driven; the basic measure of 'risk') has departed from its long term reliable downwards trend. If the trend had continued, national annual road deaths would be down to about 2,000 per annum by now. We're 1,200 lives per year behind expectation.
I daresay the data would be more compelling if you were to illustrate with the cumulative number of lives that would have been saved, rather than the number p.a..
This rhetorical technique has been adopted and employed extensively by Gordon Brown. If it's good enough for the Chancellor's public statements, it should be good enough for the rest of us.
Also, it would be great if someone could shed some light on the commercial influences that bear on road policies.
Devices such as Gatsos, Truvelos, SPECS, and all the rest are pushed upon their clients (SCPs, LAs, etc) by outfits whose raison d'etre is to generate a profit, full stop.
Not infrequently, these commercial outfits are run by former civil servants who saw a great commercial opportunity to go to the private sector and exploit the system that they learned from the inside.
If the public think that decisions about what "safety devices" to purchase and how to deploy them are made by disnterested, objective experts who are immune from lobbying and other pressures from the commercially self-interested, they should also be looking forward to a visit from the Easter Bunny.
We have put up saftey signs, slow down flashing signs, lights, road markings, speed cameras etc. I believe that if we went back to making the driver responsible for assessing risk (i.e. don't stick a warning sign up and chevrons everywhere, make the driver responsible for checking for him/herself).
We spend far too much time trying to do stuff for everyone that they need to take responsibility for themselves and look where it's got us.
Cost us loads more money, makes no difference to deaths on the roads and society itself just always looks to blame someone else.
We spend far too much time trying to do stuff for everyone that they need to take responsibility for themselves and look where it's got us.
Cost us loads more money, makes no difference to deaths on the roads and society itself just always looks to blame someone else.
It's never going to change though is it. Look at what we've had from the government in the last couple of weeks:
We have problems with binge drinking: Increase the tax on booze.
We have global warming: Increase the tax on cars/aeroplanes.
We have road deaths: Tax people who speed.
I'm expecting fast food to have an increase in tax next week to fight obesity.
Next year, a supplementary education tax, which will be paid by parents whose children don't get an A in their GCSE's. Admitedly this will probably raise less than £100, but its the principle you see.
We have problems with binge drinking: Increase the tax on booze.
We have global warming: Increase the tax on cars/aeroplanes.
We have road deaths: Tax people who speed.
I'm expecting fast food to have an increase in tax next week to fight obesity.
Next year, a supplementary education tax, which will be paid by parents whose children don't get an A in their GCSE's. Admitedly this will probably raise less than £100, but its the principle you see.
bigbox said:
Everyone knows that these are now installed to generate revenue and yet we are powerless to stop yet another stealth tax. The safety aspect is neither here nor there.
Thats just it... what can we do? even if labour were voted out of office becuase of things like this the alternate parties would probably do just the same. Says allot for living in a democracy doesn't it, we don't really have a voice.
God bless Paul Smith and his effort's, slowly the anti-letsblamespeedforeverything is gaining traction but why has it taken so long when 1 in 20 accidents are because of speed. Even with the great deal of effort by Paul and other motoring campaigners I can't see any real life impact being made.
as also mentioned its a matter of time until the nice friendly ANPR 'uninsured driver catching cameras' are billing everyone monthly for how many miles they have driven so we can set a 'green-britains gonna save earth' example to the rest of world how to tax your population to death just for leaving their house, becoming a bum and reproducing like a rabbit will probably provide a better income in the very near future.
Edited by martaay on Wednesday 1st November 13:29
Do people think that there is an outside chance that changing the policy so that cameras can get placed on stretches of road with no previous history of injury/death could work in the anti-camera lobbyists favour?
What type of statement could be made out of a scenario where a camera is placed on a stretch of road that has been without serious injury/death for XX years where there is then, post camera, a serious injury/death on that road? This could surely generate some huge media attention?
Not that it would likely make a difference even if it did happen though, there is already plenty of proof that cameras don't work to ignore. What does a little bit more matter?
What type of statement could be made out of a scenario where a camera is placed on a stretch of road that has been without serious injury/death for XX years where there is then, post camera, a serious injury/death on that road? This could surely generate some huge media attention?
Not that it would likely make a difference even if it did happen though, there is already plenty of proof that cameras don't work to ignore. What does a little bit more matter?
i'm enragged to fine out this government allows the camera partnership to target motorist's so they meet their own financial targets, as is in my local paper today.!!!!
Please read on.
"SAFETY camera bosses in Suffolk have budgeted to catch a speeding motorist every 13 minutes, the EADT can reveal.
This year about 40,000 people are expected to be caught by mobile and fixed cameras on the county's roads, generating around £2million to help fund the network.
In 2005/06, Suffolk SafeCam expected to prosecute 46,800 motorists but issued penalties to just over 42,000. This generated a profit of about £130,000 to be passed to the Government.
Michelle Finnerty, spokeswoman for SafeCam, said: “We need to meet our costs but it's not about the money - it's about casualty reductions.
Although admitting costs associated with the partnership need to be met, including administration and camera maintenance bills, Ms Finnerty said budgets can be reassessed if fewer than expected motorists are prosecuted.
“The predictions for the number of speeders expected to be caught are based on previous years' activities,” she said.
“If fewer offences were prosecuted than expected, budgets can be reviewed. It's only the speeders who pay for the system.”
Please read on.
"SAFETY camera bosses in Suffolk have budgeted to catch a speeding motorist every 13 minutes, the EADT can reveal.
This year about 40,000 people are expected to be caught by mobile and fixed cameras on the county's roads, generating around £2million to help fund the network.
In 2005/06, Suffolk SafeCam expected to prosecute 46,800 motorists but issued penalties to just over 42,000. This generated a profit of about £130,000 to be passed to the Government.
Michelle Finnerty, spokeswoman for SafeCam, said: “We need to meet our costs but it's not about the money - it's about casualty reductions.
Although admitting costs associated with the partnership need to be met, including administration and camera maintenance bills, Ms Finnerty said budgets can be reassessed if fewer than expected motorists are prosecuted.
“The predictions for the number of speeders expected to be caught are based on previous years' activities,” she said.
“If fewer offences were prosecuted than expected, budgets can be reviewed. It's only the speeders who pay for the system.”
Jet's R1 said:
i'm enragged to fine out this government allows the camera partnership to target motorist's so they meet their own financial targets, as is in my local paper today.!!!!
Please read on.
"SAFETY camera bosses in Suffolk have budgeted to catch a speeding motorist every 13 minutes, the EADT can reveal.
This year about 40,000 people are expected to be caught by mobile and fixed cameras on the county's roads, generating around £2million to help fund the network.
In 2005/06, Suffolk SafeCam expected to prosecute 46,800 motorists but issued penalties to just over 42,000. This generated a profit of about £130,000 to be passed to the Government.
Michelle Finnerty, spokeswoman for SafeCam, said: “We need to meet our costs but it's not about the money - it's about casualty reductions.
Although admitting costs associated with the partnership need to be met, including administration and camera maintenance bills, Ms Finnerty said budgets can be reassessed if fewer than expected motorists are prosecuted.
“The predictions for the number of speeders expected to be caught are based on previous years' activities,” she said.
“If fewer offences were prosecuted than expected, budgets can be reviewed. It's only the speeders who pay for the system.”
Please read on.
"SAFETY camera bosses in Suffolk have budgeted to catch a speeding motorist every 13 minutes, the EADT can reveal.
This year about 40,000 people are expected to be caught by mobile and fixed cameras on the county's roads, generating around £2million to help fund the network.
In 2005/06, Suffolk SafeCam expected to prosecute 46,800 motorists but issued penalties to just over 42,000. This generated a profit of about £130,000 to be passed to the Government.
Michelle Finnerty, spokeswoman for SafeCam, said: “We need to meet our costs but it's not about the money - it's about casualty reductions.
Although admitting costs associated with the partnership need to be met, including administration and camera maintenance bills, Ms Finnerty said budgets can be reassessed if fewer than expected motorists are prosecuted.
“The predictions for the number of speeders expected to be caught are based on previous years' activities,” she said.
“If fewer offences were prosecuted than expected, budgets can be reviewed. It's only the speeders who pay for the system.”
"it's not about the money - it's about casualty reductions."
Load.Of.Bollocks.
Safespeed are doing a fantastic job - keep up the good work Paul!
Why is it though, that I rarely hear about Safespeed's campaign work in the national press or on television? I only ever read these arguments against the government's transport policy on sites such as PH. Preaching to the converted surely?!
It's in the national press that Safespeed needs to make their voice heard. If the vast majority of non-petrolheads are made aware of the shortcomings of the government's transport policy, public opposition will surely increase.
Why is it though, that I rarely hear about Safespeed's campaign work in the national press or on television? I only ever read these arguments against the government's transport policy on sites such as PH. Preaching to the converted surely?!
It's in the national press that Safespeed needs to make their voice heard. If the vast majority of non-petrolheads are made aware of the shortcomings of the government's transport policy, public opposition will surely increase.
Whilst clearly only 5% of road deaths are due to excessive speed, no one can deny, that the amount of damage (injury/death etc) done in a road accident will reduce, the slower you are travelling. Its obvious however, that the slower you travel, the greater the risk of an accident due to driver innatention etc becomes.
I think fixed marked speed cameras at road junctions, blind spots, shools etc are a good idea. However, the mobile type are the real problem. They acheive nothing other than revenue and make drivers take evasive action, ie hit the brakes, which on busy roads can be disasterous. I found myself coming over the brow of a hill yesterday, on an open dual carriageway, only looking for the mobile camera, which often sits in a suitably distant layby. Sure enough it was there, as I passed a slip road on my left hand side, and a crossroads a few hundred meters ahead. Remove the camera risk, and I might have payed attention to the real risks!
Money, money, money about sums it all up, sod the general public.
The only way to sort the problem out, is how the French do. As someone said, the ballet bollox only changes the face of government, and as I have said before, who needs governing (democracy, free country, is`nt this what our fathers died for?), surely we just need an administration and a security service.
I think fixed marked speed cameras at road junctions, blind spots, shools etc are a good idea. However, the mobile type are the real problem. They acheive nothing other than revenue and make drivers take evasive action, ie hit the brakes, which on busy roads can be disasterous. I found myself coming over the brow of a hill yesterday, on an open dual carriageway, only looking for the mobile camera, which often sits in a suitably distant layby. Sure enough it was there, as I passed a slip road on my left hand side, and a crossroads a few hundred meters ahead. Remove the camera risk, and I might have payed attention to the real risks!
Money, money, money about sums it all up, sod the general public.
The only way to sort the problem out, is how the French do. As someone said, the ballet bollox only changes the face of government, and as I have said before, who needs governing (democracy, free country, is`nt this what our fathers died for?), surely we just need an administration and a security service.
gavyn said:
Do people think that there is an outside chance that changing the policy so that cameras can get placed on stretches of road with no previous history of injury/death could work in the anti-camera lobbyists favour?
What type of statement could be made out of a scenario where a camera is placed on a stretch of road that has been without serious injury/death for XX years where there is then, post camera, a serious injury/death on that road? This could surely generate some huge media attention?
Not that it would likely make a difference even if it did happen though, there is already plenty of proof that cameras don't work to ignore. What does a little bit more matter?
What type of statement could be made out of a scenario where a camera is placed on a stretch of road that has been without serious injury/death for XX years where there is then, post camera, a serious injury/death on that road? This could surely generate some huge media attention?
Not that it would likely make a difference even if it did happen though, there is already plenty of proof that cameras don't work to ignore. What does a little bit more matter?
I sometimes this this way as well. If enough people are caught and see the stupidity of it, then general opinion will turn against them. However, don't underestimate the partnerships' ability to paint every camera-related KSI as the fault of "the motorist" rather than the camera. You can just hear them: "After all, cameras can't be expected to fix every problem, can they?"
VladD said:
Next year, a supplementary education tax, which will be paid by parents whose children don't get an A in their GCSE's. Admitedly this will probably raise less than £100, but its the principle you see.
Unless yhey take a leaf out of John Kerry's book and anyone who doesn't get an A or A* is automatically enlisted in the Army and packed off to Iraq / Afghanistan.
If that were the case what's the betting then they'd toughen the exams up a bit.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff