Safe Speed Forums

See this ABD PR:

New research undermines M4 cameras

New research from road safety group the Association of British Drivers today damned the M4 speed cameras as "a massive mistake". The Association was also
charged £111 for access to vital information about the causes of crashes which, it believes, should have been made public.

In data provided by Wiltshire Constabulary, driver inattention topped the list of accident causes, followed by poor lane changing and careless/reckless
behaviour. In fact, not one single accident had excess speed as the sole cause.

But included in the crashes that allowed the Partnership to use speed cameras were:

- an accident where a pedestrian fell from a bridge
- an accident where a gust of wind pushed one lorry into another
- several tyre blowout accidents
- a crash where a car drove the wrong way up the motorway

"Excess speed" came fifth on a list of accident causes along with driver fatigue. "Excess speed includes accidents where vehicles were travelling within
the speed limit but too fast for the conditions - e.g. fog - where cameras could have no effect.

Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD's Road Safety Spokesman, said "These statistics show clearly that speed is far from the most significant factor in crashes
- but no matter what the causes, the Partnership still thinks cameras are the solution. These figures show that cameras on the M4 will do absolutely
nothing for road safety. They should be withdrawn immediately."

In investigating the causes of M4 crashes, the ABD found that hard data was next to impossible to acquire. The camera Partnership even initially denied
that they held data on the causes of crashes. After requesting information from a range of departments and organisations, a request under the Freedom of
Information Act was also turned down. The ABD was finally forced to pay £111 to Wiltshire Constabulary for the data.

McArthur-Christie continued, "This data - now we've forced it into the public domain - raises very serious questions about the use of speed cameras on the
M4. It also raises questions about why the data has not been made public before."

Brian Gregory, the ABD's Chairman, said "This work shows clearly that we need to get away from the whole "the answer's a speed camera, now what's the
question?" approach to road safety. We also want to see them forced to publish the causes of crashes they use to justify cameras."


Notes for editors

The major causes of M4 crashes, 1999-2004 were:

Inattention - a factor in 28% of crashes
Failure to judge others' path or speed (ie - poor lane changing) - a factor in 28% of crashes
Lack of judgement of own path - a factor in 17% of crashes
Fatigue - a factor in 14% of crashes
Careless, thoughtless or reckless behaviour - a factor in 14% of crashes
Excess speed - a factor in 14% of crashes

"Excess speed" is speed which is too fast for the conditions as well as speed in excess of the posted limit. As such, it is impossible to find out how
many crashes were caused by drivers exceeding the limit and how many by simply too fast for the conditions.

Significantly, the causes of crashes are given rankings by accident investigators. They class causes as definite, probable and possible. "Excess speed"
was ranked as a "definite" cause in just one fatal crash - less than 1% of all accidents.

*Data from Wiltshire Constabulary, M4 crashes 1999-2004
==========================================

And Safe Speed's supporting PR:

PR217: M4 Cameras: Accident causation data confirms Wiltshire lies

News: Strict embargo: 12:01am Thursday 21st July 2005

Accident causation data obtained by the Association of British Drivers from
Wiltshire Constabulary confirms that speeding was not a serious problem on the
M4 Motorway.

Recently Wiltshire and Swindon Camera Partnership claimed that their camera
vans had reduced crashes on the M4 by over 60% - yet examination of crash
causation data reveals that excessive speed was a factor in just 14% of
crashes.

"Excessive speed" in these terms is NOT the same as exceeding a speed
limit - it includes speed inappropriate for the conditions as well as speed in
excess of the speed limit. Sample data from Avon and Somerset, Durham and
Canada (the only such data we have been able to find) all put the split at
70/30 with 30% in excess of a speed limit. So our best estimate is that
(30%*14%=) 4.2% of M4 crashes involved exceeding a speed limit.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: I would very much like to hear the Camera
Partnership explain exactly how it is supposed to be possible that their
cameras reduced crashes by over 60% when only about 4% of crashes involved
exceeding a speed limit. It does not make sense. There is absolutely no
mechanism by which their claims could be true."

Paul continues: "Speed cameras create vested interests and the vested
interests repeatedly mislead the public about the nature of road dangers. UK
road safety cannot get back on track until the vested interests have been
dismantled and the truth is admitted."

Paul concludes: "The Government will now have to admit that they were entirely
wrong about speed cameras - and the sooner the better. Far from making the
roads safer they have damaged the foundations of British road safety by
squandering massive resources on a minor safety factor."

<ends>

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

This story already has a super treatment on 'The Newspaper':

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/538.asp

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

and fog & mist are very common on this stretch of road.

So we've established that their figure of 64% couldn't have possibly come from accident causation data, so where did it come from?

And how can they possibly produce a figure so early in the scheme? The cameras were rolled out in April/May this year. They haven't been in operation through a winter yet. As winter is the worst time for accidents, any downward movement in accident figures could be purely seasonal!

Are they so desperate for public support that they feel the need to pluck figures out of the air? I guess the mass-deployment of cameras across the entire motorway network represents so much money for them that they are.

What the hell is this Country coming to?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

It depends whether we're talking about causing a crash, or causing a crash of a particular severity. For example, if a gust of wind blows two lorries together, then speed will not be a factor in causing the accident to occur, but it will affect the severity of the resulting accident. Hence reducing speed could reduce the number of accidents of a given severity by more than the percentage of accidents it causes would suggest. Same for the tyre blowout scenario. However the difference of 4% vs 60% seems somewhat unlikely to be able to be fully accounted for in this way, and it isn't even clear from the language used that they're referring to crashes of a particular severity level rather than all crashes anyway.

Typical of ABD and SS focusing on one aspect.
Cause of accident and contribution to severity of injury are what is key, every accident will have an outcome attributed to the speed and energy contributed to the collision.
The objective of the partnership is to reduce casualties of a fatal and serious nature.
Lets say 2 collisions were caused by inattention, one occurs at 69 mph one occurs at 89 mph, which has more POTENTIAL to cause serious or fatal injuries?
Bot do have the potential and without doubt some collisions result in death at 39 mph and some don't at 129 mph but the POTENTIAL is always higher when the speed is higher. Regardless of the cause, the speed imparted will increase the potential for death and serious injury.
The focus and argument put forward in this is directed at changing popularist attitude and it does it in a most obvious way. Even taking the crappy point of the superficial argument put forward it is easy to see that 14% of accidents are being addressed and the speed element contributing to injury is what is being addressed. So just waht is wrong with that?
Crap argument, crap organisation, crap reporting!

Your reading comprehension a tad lacking? It's at "best" 30% of 14%.

Are you completely inumerate too? I know that the educational requirements for low-grade civil servants are not exactly demanding, but one would have hoped that you'd be able to do a bit of simple arithmetic.

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

"Excess speed - a factor in 14% of crashes "
It's be cause we are edoooocated that we ignored the further rubbish at the bottom.

Let's say 2 drivers are using the M4, one monitoring their speed to make sure they don't drift even slightly above 70, one happy to make progress at whatever speed feels most appropriate. Which driver has more potential to become inattentive?




Ah, that old argument again. Sure, regardless of the cause, a higher-speed crash contains more energy, so is more likely to cause damage. But what if, say, there were never any accidents involving vehicles exceeding the limit? It wouldn't then matter that the physics says they'd do more damage when they crashed, because they never do crash. Now, what if, say, there were only a tiny minority of accidents - 4%, for example - involving vehicles exceeding the limit? Can the additional damage they do be so bad as to justify the use of speed cameras in order to try and reduce the KSI figures?

You have a go at ABD and Paul for being so focussed on the speed issue, which is a bit rich coming from someone who is employed by an organisation who is entirely focussed on speed.




Oh, where do I begin... For starters, the 14% figure is for excessive speed accidents which, as Paul explains, includes BOTH accidents where the speed was in excess of the limit AND accidents where the speed was excessive for the conditions without being in excess of the limit. In reality the number of "excess of the limit" accidents is almost certain to be lower than 14% - Paul suggests 4%.

But let's assume that, for some reason, this stretch of the M4 doesn't play by the rules of other roads, and that for some reason every single one of those accidents is caused by speed in excess of the limit. That's 14%. 14%. Just 14% of ALL accidents.

Now, let's stick a few cameras up on overbridges. Does that stop people from speeding? Does it hell. Remind me again JJ, just how many NIPs were issued last year... So, you don't actually stop people from speeding, yet you think that you're still able to stop speed-related accidents from occurring? You still think you're doing something to address those 14% of accidents which MAY have speed in excess of the limit as a factor? And you still think there's nothing wrong in what you do?


I notice that fatigue was a factor in 14% of accidents too - why not sell off your cameras, buy some coffee machines and comfy chairs, and invite drivers to pull over for a caffeine fix and short nap? You'd have just as much effect on the KSI figures and, I suspect, you'd get a damn sight more support and respect from the general public than you do right now. Do you think the market for coffee/couch detectors would be as thriving as the market for camera detectors is right now? Hmm... CSCP - Cumbria Sofa and Coffee Partnership, has a nice ring to it

And this from the organisation that can't answer basic questions, won't face public debate, and can't explain why their operations have caused a rise in road deaths in BOTH years of operation.

How do you sleep at night?

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

Hmmm... Illiterate as well as inumerate. "Excess speed" does not = "speed in excess of the limit" - which is the only thing that cameras can address.

0/10 JJ - Must try harder.

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

While of course, back in the real world, where speeds are selected as appropriate by responsible drivers, no such effect exists.

We know because the average collision intensity is just a tiny fraction of free travelling speeds. Average crash severity is a function of degree of driver error, not free travelling speed.

All these unjustified and ill-founded attempt to effect average collision intensity by speed control are making drivers worse at avoiding crashes and INCREASIN average collision intensity.

Basically, pal, you are just a deadly distraction.

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

The Wiltshire Partnership have tried to bury this story by releasing the 'Folly Bottom' story on the same day. To some extent they have been successful, but I'm doing my best to fight back.

Everyone here could help by contacting media (especially media along the M4 corridor, and national newspapers) and telling them:

* how important it is
* how disgusted you are
* Ask them what coverage they are giving to the story
* point out that Wiltshire partnership are trying to bury it with the Folly Bottom story.

Get to it guys!

Be ready with this link:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/65

And this about the burying story:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/66

(Unfortunately the ABD PR is not yet on line, but the text of it is above)

And don't be afraid to send it to your MP...

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

Mmmm, we were wondering how to get the support up above the 70% figure, this is an excellent idea. Thanks!

What 70% figure.
Dreamland again.
Still, you must protect your ill-gotten incomes.

Hold on a sec, it's Wilts Camera Partnership who are claiming to have lowered collisions by some ridiculous amount based solely on their speed enforcement practice. This PR simply demonstrates that they are liars and frauds, and it focuses on that one issue, because it's that one issue that Wilts themselves are harping on about.

_________________
Carl Prescott

Quantify your statement and provide the figures. You can't. This goes against all of the research and reporting from the qualified organisations that have reported on this sch as TRL and the organisations responsible for the WHO report. Teh world is yours not the real one.

Again, quantify it. You can't. The relationship is directly proportional, what is the factor that relates the 2? You can't say and the energy imparted in the fatal force is variable but never the less directly proportional.

You are making unjustified statements you are desperately tryig to change to fact by making them legend.

Take your education idea and start by promoting the Highway Code first before you get any where near your advanced ideas, they are not suitable for a mass transport situation without the basics. A correctly prepared driver is not distrated in the least by speed enforcement but a determined manipulative driver or one that is ignorant of the rule of the road are.

Up comes the doormouse!

Ah, would that be the 70% of people who, when faced with an opinion poll designed to elicit answers which support the use of speed cameras, fail to spot this bias in the poll and end up giving you exactly the answers you're looking for? Or would that be the 70% of people who would support the use of speed cameras in specific locations (e.g. outside schools during dropping-off and picking-up times), but who wouldn't support the more widespread use of cameras for which you claim their support anyway?

Or could it be that 70% of Cumbrians genuinely DO support every single aspect of the CSCP operation, in which case there must be some weird mind-warping drug in the water/air up there to make them behave in a way entirely unlike the rest of the UK...

It seems events in London may already be burying this news

edited to add: Sent details to BBC as well tho'

Of course I can. Loads of ways. Take the simplest:

With near miss incidents outnumbering crashes by between 5:1 and 30:1 (depending on the definition of a near miss) the average impact speed in an incident is clearly a tiny fraction of free travelling speed.

Or

The lowest free travelling speed in common use on UK roads is about 30mph. We know that around 20% of child pedestrians die in 30mph impacts and 10% die in 20mph impacts. But in the real world the percentage of child pedestrians killed is 0.4% and the average impact speed must be tiny to achieve this proportion.

Don't ask me why the research is so completly useless and based on the same false assumption that you employ. Ask them - I think it's absolutely shameful.

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