Safe Speed Forums

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 13:02 this afternoon:

PR439: Critical guide to new speed camera rules

news: for immediate release

Department for Transport have published new rules for the use of speed
cameras today (Wednesday 31st January 2007). We present here a 'critical guide'
to the new rules:

3 This amounts to the winding up of the 'National Safety Camera Programme'.

4 This appears to move much of the responsibility away from Department for
Transport, where the speed camera issue has become 'too hot to handle'. However
Safe Speed asserts that DfT remain fully liable.

5 Cameras must remain visible.

8 This so called 'evidence' remains very poor indeed, neglecting side effects
completely. Safe Speed has a list of 30 negative side effects.

10 The 42% claim is largely or entirely 'Regression to the mean' effect. See
Appendix H of the report in question.

11 Very weasel words. If they won't put a number to the 'substantial benefit'
- and they won't - how do they know if there's any benefit at all?

12 Safe Speed termed the new speed limit guidance as 'flawed and deadly'. We
think it's founded on 'bad science'.

19 'Better meshing' = Weasel words for spend less on cameras and more on
other things. (And don't blame DfT for the results.)

21 Repeating the idea that 'engineering is the first choice solution'.

24 VAS are known to be more effective than speed cameras, and many times more
cost effective. It remains to be seen how much of the grant cash will be spent
on VAS instead of cameras.

25 SID = cheaper VAS

4.25 'recommended' = no longer 'required'. Of course if a camera is placed
where there have been no crashes, then crashes can only go UP. No wonder they
no longer wish to collect data on a national basis. (9.68)

27 We're extremely worried about the load on the courts.

28 DfT denies their responsibility.

31 They don't seem to have read their own research in TRL595 which shows that
cameras in such locations are associated with an increase in crashes.

34 20mph zones need to be self-enforcing because it takes too much driver
attention to attempt to maintain 20mph by using the speedo.

39 Full visibility must be maintained. "The Department expects" but no
suggestion of any possible sanction for
non-compliance.

59 About time too! But we don't expect the local partnerships to comply. They
never have before.

60 We don't want national data because we know it can hurt us.

<ends>


Notes for editors
=================

The new Guidance published today by DfT:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/ca ... ftcirc0107



PR438 issued in advance of publication (remains fully accurate):
================================================================
Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/296

PR438: Speed Cameras 'TOO HOT TO HANDLE' as DfT dumps responsibility

news: for immediate release

Department for Transport (DfT) are expected to publish new rules for the use of
speed cameras today (Wednesday 31st January).

TOO HOT TO HANDLE - DfT Shifts responsibility for failed speed camera programme
to local authorities and quietly hopes it will fade away...

At the end of March this year the 'national speed camera programme' will be
wound up. After too many negative newspaper front pages and no ability to prove
that speed cameras have improved road safety DfT is attempting to shift the
responsibility to local authorities.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Speed cameras have failed as a road safety policy
- rather than admit the failure DfT seems to be hoping that it will slip away."

"The new funding arrangements will lead to substantial and ongoing cuts in the
speed camera programme because the funding grants are not 'ring fenced' for
speed cameras and other road safety initiatives will make increasing demands on
the capped funds."

The speed camera programme has been built on two illusions:

Firstly: the 'benefit illusion' of 'regression to the mean' - at least three
quarters of the benefit claimed for cameras has been a statistical effect
resulting from installing cameras where crashes have been unusually bad and
expected to reduce anyway.

Secondly: the total neglect of the negative side effects of speed cameras. The
side effects are wide ranging and deadly, with at least 30 known side effects
Top of the list are damage to the Police public relationship, false safety
messages, driver distraction, and distortion of safety priorities. Many of the
side effects bear directly on our most precious road safety asset - driver
quality.

It's great to see an end to the national speed camera programme - it's a step
on the path to better road safety and an end to use of speed cameras.

Safe Speed has played an important role in ending the national speed camera
programme, but there's more work to do. We won't get road safety back on track
until every last speed camera is in the scrap yard."

<ends>

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

There's been a surprising lack of interest from the mainstream media on this story. I wonder whether they will take it up tomorrow.

Having said that, a woman from BRAKE was interviewed about it on Radio 5 Live at about 5.45pm. Predictable nonsense - not surprisingly I was shouting "lying cow" etc at the radio

The presenter asked her if she ever broke the speed limit, even by a teeny weeny bit, and she assured him that she didn't. Not ever. Hmm - a determined interviewer could really have gone for the jugular on that one...

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

This is an interesting quote:



I think this is effectively an admission that many drivers do have to waste lots of observation time looking at their speedos. This engine in most cars doing 20mph is barely working and so it is acknowledged that is difficult to notice a change in speed unless you keep checking the speedo.
I find it is the change in engine tone that gives the main clue to a change of speed - most people struggle to notice even a 15% change visually.

Driving fairly low powered cars you always notice even quite small changes in speed and you also have to consciously give the accelerator a good push to significantly change your speed. However in car with a relative much higher power a very minor change in throttle can vary your speed considerably and often (in none sports cars) the engine is much quieter so you're less likely to notice any change in engine pitch.

This effectively means that prosecuting people for small amounts over the limit discriminates against people with expensive cars as it is much harder to maintain accurately posted speeds except if you spend lots of time checking you're speedometer - which then makes you much more likely to have a crash.

Deaf drivers must really struggle unless they perhaps "feel" the engine

3 February 2007
GATSOS A GO GO
Speed cam site rules eased
By Rosa Prince, political correspondent

SPEED cameras need no longer be restricted to accident blackspots.

Rules that limit cameras to roads where there have been at least three deaths or serious injuries over three years are being relaxed.

The number of speed cameras around the country, currently around 6,000, could grow.

The Department for Transport told councils this week that from April 1 they will have more flexibility in where they can position fixed cameras.

They are still encouraged to put them in blackspots but will have more freedom to site them where the public are concerned about safety, such as outside schools or on roads where speeding is a major problem.

The DfT said yesterday: "This is in response to residents who said, 'Why should we have to wait until there is a death or serious injury before taking action against speeding drivers?' We have told councils the existing regulations are excellent and that they should definitely continue to stick to them.

"But we want to give them more flexibility and the opportunity to take pro-active steps as well." The rules say: "The DfT does not want to be prescriptive about conditions to be met for safety cameras.

"The move gives local authorities, the police and other local partners greater freedom and flexibility to pursue whichever locally agreed mix of road safety measures they see fit in order to reduce casualties."

It also tells councils that studies show putting cameras in known blackspots is still the best way to save lives.

More than two million £60 speeding fines are issued annually, up from 200,000 in 1995.

A four year study estimated there were more than 4,000 fewer crashes a year as a result, saving 100 lives.

But also from April, under plans unveiled last year by then Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, councils will no longer use money from fines to set up more cameras but will have to hand it over to the Treasury.

In return they will be allowed to bid for cash from a new £110million pot if they want to introduce speed reduction measures.

Where was this actually taken from? We need to acknowledge the source I believe to avoid copyqright infringement. It would be a shame to have to pull it.

It's from the Daily Mirror here.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed