Safe Speed Forums

I've been having a somewhat heated, yet so far civil correspondance with Suffolk SCP, the latest installement of which I have included below. What if anything can I repond with over the report she is pointing too.

Many thanks


Dear Mr Mitchell,

The TRL report has also been misinterpreted by many, the research was about the crash reporting system rather that crash causation factors. Marie Taylor, head of TRL research has commented on this several times. You may wish to one comment yourself (Section 2) from the attached link. This is not our study, so I would suggest that if you have a query with it then you contact TRL direct. http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/10myths.pdf

We are currently in the process of updating the web site and the road accidents page will show pre / post camera accident statistics which I am sure you will find helpful.


Michelle Finnerty
Communications Manager
Suffolk SafeCam


You wrote:
> Michelle,
>
> I can understand why you would like me to leave it there, but there are =
> too many questions unanswered, like how the alleged reduction figures =
> are arrived at.
> I feel very saddened and disappointed in a system that manages to =
> justify the fleecing of millions of pounds from road users who prefer to =
> drive around the 85th percentile (which is statistically safer than many =
> of the ridiculously set limits).
>
> Surely a wider data sample allowing for a full RTTM will show that there =
> are no fewer deaths due to cameras, it may even be more! I know of at =
> least one accident at Snetterton when a driver panic braked seeing a =
> camera. As I said, surely if every camera saved just one life, let =
> alone 80% less, then there would surely be NO deaths, as there are more =
> cameras than deaths.
>
> As for Brunstrom's comments, I saw the original transcript, and it was =
> very clear what he said.
>
> The casualty figures are not decreasing significantly enough (if at all) =
> to prove that the existence of grey boxes buy the side of the road some =
> how miraculously save lives, so why are you allowed to continue, that is =
> the question that will continue to be asked by people like me who are in =
> very real danger of losing everything for driving and riding on the =
> roads at a safe speed.
>
> Upto 4000 people die on the roads each year, a figure that has not even =
> been dented by speed enforcement. There's a reason for that, in that =
> excessive speed simply doesn't kill that many people and no amount of =
> 'SPEED KILLS' propaganda will change that. I think the TRL report said =
> that excessive speed played a PART in about 7% of all road deaths. So =
> surely the most the 100million fleecing can achieve would be to address =
> that 7%.
>
> Given that many of those accidents could have been avoided by other far =
> more suitable measures, such as road design, pedestrian education, =
> adequate signage and sensible enforcement, then blanket monitoring of =
> silly limits is hardly the way to safe lives, but of coarse it does make =
> a hell of a lot of money.
>
> I just wish the limits were sensible, (as do the police), and enforced =
> sensibly. Many more things are killing people on the roads, none of =
> which are so vigorously enforced.
>
> I am trying to keep calm and be polite, but this issue is not going to =
> go away until it is fixed. There really is something wrong if you =
> believe I am increasing the risk to myself and others for riding/driving =
> at a safe speed over the posted limit in all conditions. That is =
> criminally simplistic, and should not be used as a mechanism to =
> criminalize those of us that can and regularly do use the road without =
> incident.
>
> There's so much more I could say on the subject but it will wait for =
> another day. Please don't expect people like me to just go away, when =
> such blatant misuse of statistics is being used in this way, there's =
> simply too much at stake.
>
> I will however only reply to you further if I have something else =
> significant to say, but will continue to write to my MP for now.
>
> Many regards
> Julian

Safe Speed reply to that god-awful document:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pactsssi.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Many thanks Paul.
I've replied to with the following
-----------------------------------------------
Hello Michelle,

I have read the document you kindly referred me to, and I must say I really do hope that it is not the sort of data that you base your ethos on.

I thought I'd seen it before, and also found a good reference to it on an excellent site, namely, Safe-Speed

Safe Speed reply to that god-awful document:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pactsssi.html

Like everything else on that site which I'm sure you're not a big fan of, if there is anything found to be incorrect, the site owner will correct it openly. Needless to say, that has not happened yet, and MP's and the like take a lot of interest in the content.
More over, if the SCP's or the authors of that report have good answers for the comments that go on to tear that report apart, then surely it would be in the interest of public safety for someone to correct comments made on the site. Just a suggestion, but I know that wont happen.

Once again, I find is incredulous that in the light of such information, you can continue to do what you do in the name of safety.

Many thanks for the information though. I would really like to think that you really do believe you are doing the right thing, and perhaps are just misguided. The evidence seems to indicate otherwise though, which I find very sad.

Goodbye for now.

Regards
Julian[/url]

Just got one of our free loacal papers, and the Suffolk SCP have placed a flyer in it, (so potentially thousands of these things doing the rounds now)

Scanning it looking for something to pull apart, and it seems theyve bee very careful not to mention erroneous data, no mentions of reductions in fatalities etc, even there are loads of bullshit statements like.


What sort of statement is this?


Any speed? I guess a vehicle must be moving in order to crash, so I can see how theyve covered their scally arses, but even if this statement was eluding to speed in excess of the posted limit, would it be true?

I have something in the way of a question to anyone who's read more TRL reports than me.. As I see it:-

TRL323 took data from STATS19 reports prior to 1993, which appeared to have made allowance for causal factors of both "inappropriate spped" and "speed in excess of the limit" - hence TRL323 was able to distinguish between accidents in which "excess speed below the limit" and "speeding" were different factors.

In 1995 TRL appear to have produced a new "National System" for accident reporting which by oversight (or malice aforthought) combined those two factors into one combined item - "excess speed". Thus, it would seem that all subsequent references to "excess speed" in TRL or DfT reports are unable to distinguish between which "type" of excess speed was a causal factor in an accident.

"Road Safety Research Report #43" produced for the DfT in Feb 2004 by Hickford & Hall from University of Southampton made several references to this shortcoming and in the design of the revised STATS19(2005) form reverted to itemising "Exceeding the speed limit (306)" and "Travelling too fast for conditions (307)" as discrete factors. It's interesting to note that the two revised forms proposed by TRL did not do this and continued to amalgamate the two speeding factors into one catch-all.

So... What I'm asking - or stating (I'm not totally sure of my grounds) is if *any* study based on accident recording data between 1995 and the present is able accurately to analyse whether "speeding" is a contributory factor in an accident? If it's not possible to distinguish, the foundation upon which cameras are sited looks even more shaky.

Final question to our BiB contributors... Are you using the revised version of STATS19(2005) that has two factors "306" and "307"? And if not, *why not*!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev