Safe Speed Forums

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 4w0007.htm

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has made to the finding in TRL report number 595 (table 3.18) commissioned by the Highways Agency regarding the effect of the presence of fixed speed cameras on personal injury accidents near motorway road works. [95512]

Dr. Ladyman: TRL report 595—which is one of a regular series examining the safety performance of traffic management at major motorway works—found no significant difference in the overall personal injury accident (PIA) rate between the 17 sites with cameras and the 12 sites without cameras. There was a 1 per cent. decrease in the proportion of fatal and serious PIAs recorded at the sites with cameras when compared to the “without works” period at the same locations. The report also explains that sites with cameras had a non-works PIA rate significantly (5 per cent. level) higher than the rate for sites without cameras, illustrating that the two types of sites had different characteristics.

Overall, TRL report 595 showed that road works are becoming safer. Motorway road works sites previously had a much higher accident rate than motorways without road works. The report shows that we are now approaching a point where the risks are almost equal.

In 2005, five workers were killed and 12 were seriously injured in incidents on England’s motorways and major A roads. The Highways Agency shall therefore continue to take appropriate steps, such as using cameras to enforce temporary speed restrictions, to minimise the risks faced by the workforce as they carry out their difficult and essential work.

A more comprehensive evaluation of safety cameras, which examined some 4,000 sites, was published in December 2005, and found that there had been a significant reduction in casualties at camera sites overall.

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

How were they killed or injured?

Quite. Last time I checked, they were including those killed or injured in the course of their work (i.e. nothing whatsoever to do with passing traffic.)

btw, if anyone doesn't know about TRL595, start here: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html

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

AND



Or that the non camera sites had a poorer safety culture ,in that they had more PIA and yet both sets showed overal similar accident rates - so how did the cameras increase worker safety.


And they still insist that it's all in the name of safety - safety is a culture , bred into workers and enforced by all - we should all be our own and our mate's safety officer - forget the mantle of cameras.

But then cameras generate cash -sort of says it all

But they had to cheat wildly to get those words.

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

In reality, safety is a taught culture not "bred"
It's also a culture dependent on enforcement, if it isn't drummed-into people constantly it gets ignored.

They carefully avoided saying "motorway road works are getting safer"? Are they saying "motorways without road works are getting more dangerous"?

_________________
Andrew.

I meant "bred" by constant enforcement and remindment .


Something else comes to mind - in the present "safety " led regime (where govt contracts can be lost on poor safety records)- how many firms are supressing the accident figures to ensure that they are in the running for contracts?

EG FIRM A has blokes injured, but they report for work and sit in the mess, classed as fit, paid to do nothing.
Firm B has blokes in a similar situation but sends them home on sick pay.

Which firm has the better sick record???