Safe Speed Forums

Are speed cameras killing people? Peter Hall looks at the evidence

On last Sunday's Top Gear programme, roads minister and would-be man of the motoring people Stephen Ladyman admitted to having nine points on his driving licence (nine more than Jeremy Clarkson) and said the Government would produce statistics to prove that speed cameras saved lives.

They should make interesting reading. For in response to a parliamentary question on November 22, Mr Ladyman revealed that the percentage of deaths attributed to "excessive speed" had risen significantly alongside the rise in the number of cameras.

The figures date from 1999-2004, when 15 police forces were, for the first time, required to record up to four contributory factors in all road accidents. There is no record of which factor is most significant, but one of the most predictable is "excessive speed", a concept that covers speed inappropriate for the conditions as well as speed in excess of the posted limit; it is estimated that at least 95 per cent of all accidents happen at legal speeds.

The percentage of fatal accidents in which "excessive speed" was identified as a contributory factor showed a significant rise over the six-year period, with 29, 26, 27, 30, 30 and 34 per cent respectively. There was also a rise in the percentage of all accidents in which "excessive speed" was a contributory factor, with 12, 12, 12, 13, 14 and 13 per cent.

Meanwhile, in the same period, there was a big rise in new fixed speed camera installations, with 183, 172, 200, 245, 312 and 304 respectively. (The figures for 1994-1998 were 54, 133, 146, 160 and 221.)

Statistical modelling over two- and three-year study periods (but taking no account of seasonal variations) has apparently shown a 35-40 per cent reduction in the numbers killed or seriously injured (KSI) at fixed-camera sites, against national reductions of between four and 4.5 per cent. Why, then, should we see a greater proportion of accidents caused by "excessive speed"?

The devil is in the detail. What defines an accident blackspot suitable for camera installation, for example? According to Mr Ladyman, "it is not possible to predict in advance where road casualty problems may arise".

A fixed camera is officially justified by four KSI accidents in three years over a kilometre where 20 per cent of vehicles break the speed limit outside congested periods and there is no other cost-effective remedy (mobile units require two KSI incidents).

Yet in an otherwise ineffectual interview, Jeremy Clarkson pointed out to Mr Ladyman that a KSI accident justifying a particular motorway camera had been the result of a person jumping from a bridge, and motorways are the safest roads in the country even though drivers regularly exceed the 70mph limit.

Similarly, the dreadful deaths of five teenagers on a suburban road in Hastings would appear to be more than enough to justify a camera under the rules. But if no other under-age joyriders crash at the same location, would it really demonstrate a casualty reduction of 100 per cent?

It is not unpredictable accidents but trends that worry Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign. "It's no surprise that 'excessive speed' crashes are increasing as the installation of speed cameras accelerates," he says.

"Cameras give a series of false safety messages, one of which is that if you're not exceeding the limit your speed is safe. Nothing could be further from the truth, yet millions of motorists now regard the speedometer as a barometer of safety.

"We need drivers who respond to hazards and slow down in areas of danger. Obeying speed limits is no substitute for this.

"If cameras did not reduce excessive-speed crashes, they would be useless. But if excessive-speed crashes increase as cameras multiply, then cameras are deadly. That's exactly what we're seeing and exactly what I've long been predicting. Speed cameras have proved to be a fatal mistake."

• Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits or the appropriate enforcement of motoring laws; for more details go to www.safespeed.org.uk. For the Commons Hansard record on speed-related accidents and camera installations, go to www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200 ... 122w19.htm.

Safe Speed

I just wonder where this motorway bridge is that somebody jumped off. Has Clarkson checked his sources on this one? Sounds like an urban myth.

Hall makes a mistake when he claims the death of five teenagers in one crash would qualify the location for a camera. As he says earlier in the article the criteria is three or more accidents that result in death or serious injury, not three or more deaths in one accident

I copied this link onto the Which? forums. I got the following reposte. Does anyone know the answers? Paul - if you'd like this relocating just say and I'll bang it up to the Ladyman thread in the other room.

Sir John Whitmore writes a regular column for them, and some of the stuff he writes astonishes me. Considering that he's an ex racing driver (and a damned good one at that) and also a highly talented psychologist, he seems to have completely swallowed not only the "Speeding Kills" mantra, but also seems to unquestioningly accept all the Anthropological Global Warming theory.

Perhaps - but as I read through the column he seemed to ask for a greater understatnding of the emotions of the driver who errs and causes an accident in this piece. Did not read it as T2K garbage - but rather the piece asked a number of interesting questions which I've quoted and placed in the News forum for some comments about it. Perhaps I read it differently - but basically he;'s sayin we are responsible for safety - but where I difer perhaps is that I reckon everyone must take some respsonsiblity for safety when going about their business and not simply blame the driver each time it goes pear shaped.

I wasn't referring to this article - I agree this is pretty neutral - but some of the stuff he has posted in the past has been pretty rabidly T2000, not to mention appallingly hypocritical. He seems to alternate between reminiscing about driving 500hp 200mph supercars at blistering speeds one week, to urging us all to trade our cars in for eco-specials that run on sack-cloth and ashes the next.

It's a shame, when he first appeared as their columnist I was rubbing my hands together in gleeful anticipation. Now I barely bother to read it.

Paradoxically, from his appearances on Top Gear I had formed a very low opinion of James May as being little more than a Clarkson wannabe and comedy fall-guy, but I thoroughly enjoy his light-hearted stuff in the Telegraph. Why can't he be that witty on TG? Is he deliberately dumbed down to avoid upstaging JC?</ConspiracyTheory>

Our stretch of motorway (including A74) was responsible for 6 Fatal RTCs last year, (7 fatalities)

3 were drunk pedestrians killed because they staggered or ran on to the carriageway.

2 were HGV RTCs.

1 involved a car which left the carriageway colliding with a motorway bridge.