OllyK

Read the BBC blurb on the new Speed Camera report this morning, then heard Al Darling being interviewed on breakfast TV. Is this guy on the same planet?

He claims that speed cameras saved 100 lives last year, well no they didn't. He is quoted the government KSI figures, so that 100 people saved from being killed or seriously injured. There is a difference, give me seriously injuered over dead any day.

But lets look at this a bit further. 5000+ speed cameras, they either save lives or they don't, a camera can't save part of a life. So at most 100 speed cameras worked (assuming no camera saved more than 1 life, and the KSI figures were actually all deaths). That means there are 4900 cameras out there that are either doing nothing for road safety or actually making things worse. These cameras should be removed immediately.

I'd like to see the full details of the report, as I wonder if they are just looking at the differences in the anual figures without taking in to account:
1) Regression to the mean
2) Improved road engineering near schools (speed humps, chicanes etc) reducing pedestrian injuries.
3) Continuing improvements in vehicle safety

If this is the case, the it would suggest their figures are statistically insignificant in in reality Speed Cameras do absolutely nothing towards road safety. How can government and the muppets at places like Brake honestly belive that cameras work??

Tiggs

weak argument against what he said.

for a start he is fine saying 100 lives saved. being seriously injured is possibley wrecking your life so not being injured is safe enough for me.

and just because a camera is not responsible for a life saved why remove it???? if a cop doesnt arrest someone whould they be sacked?

T

ps- i couldnt care less whether there where more, less or no cameras but if you're going to argue one way or the other make it a sound argument

Jye

Yeah, and if you're gonna counter someone elses argument Tiggs, counter it with hard facts and not more questions.

OllyK

Your life may not be the same I agree - but you would still be alive. Yes everybody would rather be fit and healthy, but if you asked all the people out there who aren't, whether they would rather be dead, those who answer yes would be in a minority I am sure.


All I was covering was the latest bull**** spin from the government. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they are actually increasing accidents as driver attention is being focused on the speedo and the camera rather than on the road. That wasn't the reason for the post. It was to make the point that the claims being made that speed cameras are working is just quoting statistics out of context.

And yes - if the crime rates were increasing year on year and the police were doing little to tackle it I would expect there to be resignations and sackings.

Jye

Yeah and they also add to congestion as everyone seems to crawl past cameras at least 10mph lower than the actual limit. They put one in a free flowing 30 mph road near me about 2 months ago, this road is now a complete pita as the knock-on effect slows traffic right back to a roundabout, which then causes a gridlock on the roads leading up to the roundabout, which then causes more congestion, yadayada. Peeps are now starting to avoid this road altogether making previously quiet streets rat runs. Muppets.

Brit_in_Japan

I tried to find the report of the Home Office website, but it wasn't there. If they are so confident in the results you would think they would make the report easy to access. If it is true, it should stand up to scrutiny.

OllyK

So true - SafeSpeed.org.uk have been requesting copies of all the government's "independant" research for over a year so they can look at it, as yet it has not been forthcoming.

It worries me as well that Killed and Seriously Injured have been grouped together. They are very different things to me and the only reason I can see for doing it is that the number killed has been increasing and those seriously injured decreasing, so by adding them, you can show an overall decrease as the numbers injured is significantly more than those killed. This "fudging" of the figures is being used to justify speed cameras, when in reality more people are dying on the roads than before.

OllyK

You may also find more on the DfT website, but I doubt it!

Tiggs

lol- you are not going to change this situation because the cameras do nothing but enforce the law. if you dont like the law then moan about the level of speed allowed- you cant just say do away with cameras because all you are saying is you want to be able to drive faster than you are legally able......there IS NO REASON to dump cameras except for that- and thats not a very good argument!

T

ps- whats all this "cant watch the road" rubbish......how long do you look at your speedo for??? if you cant drive within a certain limit without looking away from the road for so long that you're a danger then you have a problem.

CrisPDuk

You don't live in Macclesfield do you? There's one just down the road from me that does exactly this The thing that annoys me is that is slows traffic to a crawl in BOTH directions as most people aren't aware that gatsos only work in one direction

PS The increase in accidents and deaths amongst kids around built up areas a few years ago seemed to occur just after the dropping of road safety teaching in primary schools. Hmmm, coincidence?

OllyK

Safety Cameras are there, the Government claims to improve road safety and not to generate revenue. As far as improving Road Safety is concerned they are proving ineffective at best and a liability at worst. On those grounds alone they should be removed.

Research is sketchy on the effects of speedo checking at the moment as the government seems keen to avoid doing any reasearch on it. However, some other studies suggest that on average a speedo check takes approximately 1 second, i.e. from the time your eyes start to move down to the speedo, re-focus, move back up and re-focus on the road again. Surveys are suggesting that in a Speed Camera zone drivers may check their speedo between 3 and 5 times.

Assuming you are doing 50mph through a 200m speed trap zone, it will take you 8.2 seconds to pass through. So for 1 check you loose 13% of the time to a speedo check, for 2 checks thats 27%, 3 = 40%, 4=54% and 5=67%

And those with points already tend to check even more. Are you telling me that it is safe to drive around looking at the road only half the time???

CrisPDuk

Tiggs, people probably wouldn't mind so much if they weren't so blatantly revenue raising. You can't say that dropping the speed limit to 50mph on a straight rural dual carriageway, then littering it with cameras is in the interests of road safety. And before you say it, that is not a one off, this tactic is getting more and more prevalent in Derbyshire & N Lincs

TelBoy

Tiggs - very self-righteous mate, with respect.

OllyK

Glad to see this safety camera did it's job well!! Apart from the fact that there has been an accident here anyway, how many reasons can you see for why this camera should not be there??? Click the picture for some suggestions!

ajm

I'd go so far as to say weak minded too.

I agree with Jye. To play devil's advocate is one thing, but to do so without being armed with a reasoned argument of your own is sheer folly, especially when delivered in such a contemptuous tone!

Neanderthal

iTrader: (6)

What I'd like to know is, are motorcycle accidents/fatalities included in these figures?

CrisPDuk

I'm sure I know that camera, it's in High Lane, Cheshire. Most of the accidents near it are generally down to people pulling out of the pub car park (behind the trees on the left) without bothering to check for oncoming traffic.

Brit_in_Japan

Good call. They do have the report here . It's 132 pages long so it will take a bit of reading.

OllyK

I belive so, and also pedestrians. What I'd like to see is a simple matrix, one for each year:

Killed | Seriously Injured | Minor Injury |
Car
Cycle
Motorcycle
Bus
Lorry
Pedestrian

None of this rolling some stats together part way through to avoid a negative trend being vsible

SJ_Skyline

Last year more than 40% of people that died in the UK did so in their own bed!!

Be VERY careful when going to bed guys, they are deathtraps!! Maybe our beloved government should legislate against them or try to make them safer?

Jye

CrisPDuck, no I live in a relatively quiet area of west Scotland, but I'm sure we are catching up on the scamera front these days. My village/town has went from no cameras 3 years ago to 4 cameras now. None are placed outside schools etc, all have been placed just around bends on longish straight roads with no major accident problems that I am aware of, and certainly no deaths from road accidents that I can find. So much for only placing them where they save lives.

Brit_in_Japan

Selectively quoting said report, p27

"35. With improvements in vehicle design helping to reduce the severity of injuries, we
might have expected to see the number of car occupant fatalities fall faster than the
number of serious injuries, or at least to have kept pace. But this has not happened.
This would suggest that certain types of accident are resulting in fatality and that the
numbers of these ‘unsurvivable’ accidents are not reducing.

36. We are seeking to get a better understanding of this by undertaking more detailed
investigations of fatal accident data. The aim is to establish the type of accidents that
are leading to fatalities, what particular contributory factors are involved and whether
there are any trends in driver or rider age. TRL has started by analysing the underlying
data relating to fatal accidents involving car occupants and motorcyclists over the
1997 and 2002 period6.

37. These further investigations show that many of the accidents that result in fatality
involve either no other vehicle, a vehicle or motorcycle leaving the road or occur at
bends. It has also shown that many of the car occupant fatalities involve the younger
age groups and that most fatalities (in both groups) happen on rural roads, where
speeds are generally higher. Further details can be found in chapter 3 and at
Appendix 2. Chapter 4 shows how the strategy is being developed to tackle this
issue (and other areas that have been identified as requiring continuing attention)."

Brit_in_Japan

Page 64/65

The road safety benefits of camera enforcement
An independent report on the two year pilot scheme where eight areas were
allowed to reinvest some of the money from speeding fines into the installation
of more cameras and increased camera use found that casualties and speeds
were down.
Casualties:
● there was a 35% reduction in people killed or seriously injured (KSI) at camera
sites, compared to long term trend. This equates to about 280 people
● there was a 14% reduction in personal injury accidents at camera sites,
equating to about 510 fewer accidents
● there was a 56% reduction in the number of pedestrians being killed or
seriously injured at camera sites
● there was 4% fewer people killed or seriously injured across the pilot areas.
This equates to about 530 fewer people killed or seriously injured.
● average speed at all camera sites fell by 10% or 3.7mph
● average speed at urban sites (30/40 mph areas) fell by 12-13%
● the number of vehicles speeding at camera sites dropped by 67%.
The policy review

Brit_in_Japan

p94
More effective speed management
288. We shall:
● develop a high profile, national publicity campaign under the Think! campaign banner addressing road users' attitudes to speed, reminding drivers and riders of the risks of speed and the reasons for speed limits
● continue to help drivers and riders to recognise more easily both the speed limit and the appropriate speed (which may be lower) on different types and sections of road
● as part of a suite of measures, continue to promote the use of technology,
including appropriately sited cameras and vehicle activated signs, and the
development of new technology
● consult on draft revised guidance on the setting of speed limits, and formally issue the guidance to local authorities by autumn 2004
● seek to encourage a further increase in the number of 20 mph zones
● support local authorities implementing Home Zone schemes; including the
publication of regulations and statutory guidance: and the dissemination of the information from the pilot and challenge schemes
● continue to develop and test the concept of a rural road hierarchy and associated speed management assessment framework that will allow local authorities to establish vehicle speeds across the rural road network and enable them to set appropriate and enforceable speed limits. A current desktop exercise involving a small number of local authorities is already underway. Subject to the results providing justification, we shall follow this up with a full scale practical rural demonstration project in collaboration with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Countryside Agency over larger areas of the network with the participation of selected local authorities
● continue to encourage the introduction of 30 mph speed limits in villages
● support the Quiet Lanes initiative by publication of regulations and statutory
guidance; and work in conjunction with the Countryside Agency to provide local authorities with technical information on the implementation and effectiveness of these schemes
● target more specific elements of publicity on rural speeding issues.

Brit_in_Japan

289. We shall:
● work closely with the Home Office and police to deliver more effective traffic policing, including a study assessing the deterrent effect of different levels of visible police presence on the roads and the most effective methods of delivering roads policing
● with the Home Office, monitor police performance indicators to identify if there are forces that may be having relative success and if there are lessons which can be passed on to other forces
● extend the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition as part of the enforcement toolkit (I added the bold)
● continue to research and develop other potential enforcement tools as technology develops
● continue to develop the partnerships between the police and Department’s DVO agencies to deliver an even more effective approach to the enforcement of traffic law and vehicle related crime
● continue to increase the level of enforcement undertaken by VOSA and other agencies, including extending the pilot scheme under which some VOSA staff have authority to stop vehicles for spot checks to help crack down on
unroadworthy vehicles
● continue to seek further ways to crack down on uninsured and unlicensed driving
● bring into force the proposals for strengthening road traffic related penalties
published in July 2002 at the first legislative opportunity
● follow up and enact the outcome of the review of dangerous and careless driving offences in light of responses to the public consultation exercise.
Conclusions and next steps

Brit_in_Japan

p108
Summary of analysis of recent casualty trends in Great Britain

"23 Analysis of STATS19 data shows that the proportion of car occupant KSI occurring at a bend has increased from 23.7% in 1997 to 25.9% in 2002. It also shows that the proportion of KSIs that occurred when vehicles ‘hit object off carriageway’ has increased from 31.2% in 1997 to 35% in 2002. These figures suggest that a core
number of KSI casualties have been the result of a driver’s loss of control.

This is confirmed by analyses of the contributory factors recorded by certain police
forces using a system developed at TRL, which covers almost one quarter of
accidents in the STATS19 database between 1999-2002. This shows that the
proportion of accidents resulting from loss of control increased from 46.6% in 1999
to 53.2% in 2002. The TRL system provides 54 codes for police to use to explain
why accidents occur, and 2 factors have been recorded with increasing frequency for
car accidents: ‘Behaviour – careless/thoughtless/reckless’ and ‘Aggressive driving’.

24. In addition to showing changes since 1999, these Contributory Factors also give insights into the general pattern of causation of fatal car accidents over this period. The police judged that in 79% of these accidents the responsibility lay principally with the driver of the car in which someone (often the driver) died. In accidents where the driver was thought to be principally responsible, ‘Loss of Control’ was the failure reported most requently (72% of these drivers). ‘Excessive Speed’ was the most frequent explanation provided for the drivers’ failures (about 40% of drivers), followed by ‘Lack of judgement of own path’ and ‘Behaviour – careless/ thoughtless/reckless’ (about 20% of drivers). Up to four factors can be reported for the person judged to be principally responsible, so a combination of these and other factors was reported in some cases.

25. In the remaining accidents, where the driver of another vehicle was judged to be
principally responsible, ‘Loss of Control’ was again the most frequent failure, and
was reported in 40% of these accidents, with the explanation ‘behaviour –
careless/thoughtless/reckless’ reported slightly more frequently (about 30%) than
‘Excessive Speed’ (about 25%).

Tiggs

sorry guys but i just dont get the camera thing.

i,ve had plenty of fast cars and bikes but i drive within the limits. if a nice big road is now a 50 i plod down it at 50ish.....as such i have little stress and a cleanish licence!

at some point all cars will be limited by satnav starwars stuff so get used to it and book a trackday

Tiggs

just to add...im all for more real police on the roads but to say one must replace the other is daft

Mungo

Not just in that area either...
The dual carriageways leading in both directions from J11 of the M25 have had their limits cut to 50 and cameras can only be a short time away. There were some nasty accidents - caused by stupid people trying to u-turn across the gravelled central reservation, getting stuck and then getting hit. Last year they installed crash barriers to stop this, but also cut the speed limit by 20 mph - why??

Leslie

I don't think Tiggs is all wrong, and I certainly agree with him that it really is not difficult to check your speed well enough to keep within the limit without being dangerous. If you are not capable of that then you you are a bit short of driving ability.

I will also say however that the placement of speed cameras leaves a great deal to be desired. By all means use them outside schools, hospitals or other sensititive and constricted areas where one sees so many selfish drivers well over the top for safety.

I cannot think other that when the cameras are placed on the open road, especially dual carriageways also with reduced speed limits that they are there for any main purpose except to raise revenue. I think this is beyond the pale and is yet another way for us to be kept under constant control as well. The pronouncements by the minister of course are just another use of statistics to justify their actions as ever with a hint of possibly checking the positions of a few cameras in an effort to fool us into believing they are leaning over backwards on the motorist's behalf.

Les