Safe Speed Forums

I mentioned to Paul in a conversation a while ago that there is a possible explanation for what seems to be the downward movement in Cumbria of the trend in SI crashes. My hypothesis was that presence of widespread speed enforcement is dragging up the observation and attention levels of drivers who were previously deficient in that respect (because of the desire to avoid speeding tickets) and that this increased observation/concentration was improving their overall driving performance and reducing the frequency of crashes. I think Ian (Cumbria trafpol) has made a similar observation on the CSCP forum.

I was reminded of the hypothesis a few days ago when reading one of JT's posts. The point he was making is that the 'driver attention' is a finite quantity and anything which reduces it (i.e. frequent speedo checks) must, by definition, be reducing driver attention on the driving task and is therefore a bad thing. I agree with that assertion up to a point but, in order for it to be true, it pre-supposes that some part of the driver's attention which would otherwise have been applied to 'safe driving' is diverted to speedo checks. That may not be the case. I would suggest that a driver's attention to 'safe driving' varies significantly and naturally in different conditions and with workload. For example, as speed or hazard density increases, so does my attention to driving. If weather or road conditions deteriorate, I will raise my level of concentration to compensate. At other times, I will allow part of my attention to be diveretd to (say) a conversation with a passenger or (on unfamiliar roads) route finding. There is nothing inherently unsafe or dangerous in this although different drivers have different workload capacities so a degree of distraction which is not unsafe for driver A (who has good observation, awareness, experience etc) may be very unsafe for driver B (newly qualified, inexperienced, poor hazard perception etc). The danger comes when the attention taken by such such other activities leaves insufficient in the (finite) attention capacity bank for safe driving.

I think we would all agree that it is poor observation/concentration which lies at the heart of road accident causation and it is my personal observation that many, many drivers are, simply, deficient in this respect. So, it seems to me, if speed enforcement has had the effect of forcing such drivers to increase the part of their total attention capacity which is used for driving, it may have the side effect of making them better drivers, not because they are driving more slowly but because they attention level is higher. The speedo checks may be taking away part of that extra attention but, as long as there is a net gain, there is still an improvement. Is this making sense so far?

Then I turned to the puzzling aspect of accident statistics - that fact that SI (accidents and/or casualties) are reducing but fatalities are not. It occurs to me that this may fit my hypothesis thus. It is obvious that (relatively) high speeds will be present (if not a direct causal factor) in fatal crashes to a greater extent than in SI crashes (the physics takes care of that). Suppose it is the case that cause of fatal crashes IS more often high speeds combined with reckless/overconfident/aggressive driving. We might expect this type of behaviour to be less affected by speed enforcement (under my hypothesis) because lack of attention is not the most significant cause of the crash. It is aggressive driving manifested in high speed, dangerous overatking etc. On the other hand, the SI crashes (which probably have lower impact speeds - if not they would be fatal crashes) may more frequently have inattention/poor observation (e.g.SMIDSY) as the main causation factor and thus are more susceptible to reduction driven by improved attention/observation.

My hypothesis also fits Ian's recent observations in which he seems more concerned with the uninsured/drunk/drugged/reckless/boy racer/born again biker type of driver than he is with the majority - even the majority who exceed speed limits from time to time.

What do you think guys? I realise this idea may not be appealing but we have to examine all possibilities.

Regards.

Tim

I must admit it is a thought that has crossed my mnd from time to time. In truth we don't know what net effect cameras have on driver attention because no-one has done any proper research, and this doesn't look set to change.

In the broadest sense it is clear that cameras must affect drivers in all sorts of ways, and we must acknowledge that some of them must be positive, otherwise we would be no better than the likes of Steve who discounts all negative effects as being negligent or even non-existent.

But I don't believe that this effect is responsible for the current situation in Cumbria, for several reasons.

Firstly, whilst I can accept that there might be slightly different causation profiles between differing severities of accidents, I can't see how this can apply at both ends of the spectrum. The situation in Cumbria appears to be that fatals are slightly up, SIs are down, and Slights are up by roughly the same amount that SIs have dropped! I don't think this fits your theory.

Secondly, all this trumpeting about the drop in SIs is actually a very short term thing. Steve went and posted a graph the other day that demonstrated this - if you look at the KSI rate you see that it went down for about 5 months and then returned to normal. Either this is a glitch, in which case the fullness of time will render it insignificant, or else it is attributable to some external effect. Now any such external effect must by definition impinge only upon SIs (as the other categories aren't affected), and it most only be apparent over a 5 month period around the beginning of 2004.

To me that excludes cameras pretty convincingly, on either count. If there is an external effect, I think it is in the way that crashes have been classified - either some sort of experiment went on, or somebody cocked up or mis-interpreted the stats, such that a batch of SIs got classified as slights, but only for that period.

My "gut feeling", for what it's worth, is that cameras have had no discernable effect one way or the other in Cumbria. I think that all of the changes we've seen so far are within the normal statistical range for the county - and that includes the rise in fatals. If I had to make a prediction I'd say that this will continue, but that over the next 5 years or so the figures will gradually worsen, as other road safety initiatives are neglected in favour of cameras, and as road users gradually become "educated" to place speed limits too far up their list of priorities when driving.

Apologies for length of post. Must dash and catch the post...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I'm sure we're all agreed that vigilance is required to avoid crashes. I hope it's obvious that vigilence isn't enough - we have to vigilant to real driving risk factors. I worry a great deal that we are making drivers less vigilant to important risk factors and more vigilant to low grade risk factors (especially the speedo and the risk of enforcement).

So next we have to ask, if drivers pay attention to speedos and cameras more than they used to, where does this attention come from? What other factor gets less attention? Is it driving tasks, or non-driving tasks? I'd say it's almost certain to be both.

Finally the original question is: is it possible that drivers under threat of speed enforcement pay more attention to "real" risk factors. I admit it's difficult to provide a definitive answer. But I'm absolutely certain it's a red herring. I'm absolutely certain that we don't get a net benefit to important attention factors. If it were true, we could come up with some very bizarre road safety devices. Imagine a buzzer that goes off in the car every ten seconds to remind you to drive properly. How would that differ from the supposed camera benefit?



I agree with all that, although there's an important caution. I think crashes are quite likely to bite when there's a mismatch between attention and conditions. Sometimes the conditions will be changing during a period of low attention and this results in the changes in conditions being noticed late. That exact effect is likely to be a very common crash causation factor.



Perfect sence, yes. But I don't believe it for a second. I'd love to see it measured however. It's an important hypothesis that needs to be disproved.



I'm certain that there's nothing in the preconditions that distinguishes a normal fatal crash from a normal serious injury crash. Luck comes into it. Quality of driver reaction comes into it.

In abnormal crashes perhaps involving stolen cars or extremely reckless behaviours we'll find a greater proportion of fatalities.

We have fatal crashes at parking speeds, and we have loads of non injury crahes at way over 100mph. Often its a simple question of whether or not you were unlucky enough to hit something hard.



I'm sure Ian's right to concentrate on riskier groups.



It's great to ask these questions and improve our understanding. Next time I'd rather it was posted in a public area of the forum. As far as road safety questions are concerned, we have absolutely nothing to hide.

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

I'd hoped for a few more messages in this thread - Observer, What do you think of the replies so far?

Does anyone mind if I move the topic to a public position? Observer, this affects you most I think.

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

Your question is better phrased except my hypothesis was that the additional observation/attention engendered by the threat of speed enforcement leads to a generally higher level of awareness and improved road safety is a beneficial side effect of the increased attention.

I don't see how you can be "certain its's a red herring" and the analogy of a buzzer is unrealistic. That's not a real threat - speed enforcement is.



OK but that doesn't seem to illuminate this question.



Hmm. How could that be done?



Come on Paul. Fatal crashes at parking speeds? Not likely unless there's a pedestrian involved. I agree that luck plays a part once a crash has become inevitable but it seem to me it's the "Gary Player" type of luck.

[edited to add]Sorry - this doesn't make sense. What I meant was - luck plays a part once a crash becomes inevitable, but careful drivers will be much more likely to be 'lucky' than poorer drivers. Your point (I think) is that the difference between a K crash and an SI crash is down to luck/driver reaction. That may be true for any single crash but it's untestable because no two crashes are the same. My response would be that an aggressive/impatient driver, who (say) habitually performs 'risky' overtakes, runs a greater risk that his luck will run out so end up in a K crash. His problem is impatience/aggresiveness and not inattention/poor observation. On the other hand, a somewhat inattentive driver, whose attention level has been raised by the threat of speed enforcement, may, as a side effect of being more alert to speed enforcement, be more alert to real safety hazards and so avoid an SI crash altogether or mitigate to a slight injury crash.[end edit]



I have no objection to this being moved to the public forum. Perhaps I should post it on CSCP as well?

I've moved this topic from "The Clubhouse". It's the sort of stuff that I wish to be discussed widely.

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

Errr.... maybe I would be wiser to place this as a "nonnymouth - whistle blowing rant" ... but I did hint to basingmate that K's are less expensive than an SI and I have hinted that organ donations need Ks........ Not that I am saying that we ..er ....er....errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

But I still have certain memories of almost 15 years ago.......she was not carrying any donor card on her person at the time ... am saying nothing but ... go figure......................................



We are all human beings ...... humans have different demands on time ....skills are different.... and each action we make is unique..... If you wish to check this ...... wirtie something with pen, pencil, balll pen .... whatever .... and then write over it...... is it identical?


You would not be being honest if your write-over the original never strayed off mark... Try it with a tape recorder..... your enunciation will never be exactly the same......

Purchase one of those "perfect your pronunciation doo-dahs" from any software seller.... you will find the " voice graph" is never the same ....


So it is with a practical skill like driving ... each actioj is unique at that micro-second in time.... which supports what Observer is saying!

Man ... this guy commands respect....

But .. this entire family ( the ones who post on the CSPC) forum, my wife on PH and IG and myself......BiBs, medics ....lawyers..... have come to conclusion that the same type of individual was causing accdents prior to introduction of speed cams and this type is still cauising accidents now.... the type we are talking about is:

the ill educated, unwilling to learn, opinionated, obstinate either a chav or a mumptie in a 4x4 on a school run.....

I see you've now posted this on CSCP, which should be interesting.

What would be even better would be if Paul could have posted it on there. That would then force Steve into automatically gainsaying it, and therefore posting an anti-camera statement on his own website. How hilarious would that be!!!!

(The alternative is of course unthinkable - that Steve would ever actually agree with anything that Paul said)

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

...my last post was meant in jest, but I've just read Steve's response to this post on the CSCP forum, and it kind of proves the point I wasn't particularly trying to make!

There really is no hope, is there?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Contrary to what is said on that forum by Steve and Ian about Durham's figures being "higher than Cumbria's" (Um .. they are not actually ! ).. would say level pegging on aggregate. The difference lies - as they said - in the way we enforce. They use scams - paid for by offender. We use cops - paid for by tax payers.....

They advertise where they will hit. We also advertise where we intend to "lark around"

They have three vans. We have one van and lots of cops on patrol.

Our motoring public are also mindful of their licences and tend not to speed that much as they "do not know for sure where we will be larking around" They may feel a little more secure because we do not always fine and punish ... but this does not stop them telling the lads that they should "go catch some real villains!"

So ... I would say that our normal law abiding public do not feature as prominently in our stats as they used to .... and in this area, we appear to have a reduction in Ks and SIs, but rise in Slights

So ... perhaps not that far different from other areas in terms of actual results. Certainly .... improvements are swings and roundabouts ... each year is different and so is each accident.

Overall, would say we are "gaining some ground ... but have much room for improvement" but this would apply just as much to Cumbria and Lancs.



Every person takes something of his or her personality, personal stresses and demands on time with them when they travel anywhere. Not always easy to put the argument you had with a colleague out of your mind ... or think of what you might have for tea, concentrate on a strange road......which is perhaps why we should encourage new drivers to take Pass Plus or some further training soon after the initial test - even if this is just a HC /hazard aware refresher even.....just to keep them focused.




I do worry that some of these drivers' attention are focused on the look-out for speed cams in some areas.....When Wildy on PH talks of the "Pavlov Dog" effect ... this is based on what she has observed in Lancs and around where she drives...

We give indication as to where we will be targetting but do not always specify. We find that the compliance is more or less adhered to along the whole stretch as result.... Perhaps this makes people more "attentive" in our patch

This is where I would agree with Ian (I have read the site ) regarding "covert" enforcement. Or at least "semi-covert" which is the case around here..



I would say you are on the right track here. Certainly .. most of our high speed crashes have been down to the reckless, aggressive types. These types were prominent in fatals before cameras and continue to feature prominently across the country.

SIs .. Yes . impact speed is lower;, SMIDSY or some failure in observation and anticipation contributed to the accident. We also find one or two low speed SIs ... but think this has more to do with the general health of the victim . Child or elderly person will have more delicate bones...which break more easily. (Surprised Mad Doc did not pick on this! )



I would say that Ian is doing exactly what we are doing and that his concerns and targets are identical to ours.

North Yorks is the same...

The same problems are repeated nationwide ... sowhat we need really is an intelligent mix of police, education and a more sensible application of the available technology.

I see the original post in this subject has been posted on the Cumbria S Camera Partnership forum:

http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/for ... wtopic=833

Interesting and somewhat paranoid reaction from Steve, the partnership manager.

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

That's right, as far as I am concerned. The TIBMIN brigade do respond if you hit them where it hurts - in the pocket. I know that some real good drivers get caught in the same net, and that is unfortunate. I could even get caught myself, because I have been known to accidentally stray over the limit. But it's worth it if the thumb in bum, mind in neutral brigade wake up to the risks.



It's OK if SI rates are down because of it.

_________________
I stole this .sig

...but if 2, 3 or more really or even fairly good drivers are being caught for every bad one then the 'treatment' is unfair as it is penalising safe driving more than it is preventing poor driving. Furthermore, if the really bad driver is completely out of the scope of the enforcement (unregistered) then the enforcement becomes even more discredited.

The current mode of enforcement is akin to a treatment for a disease being applied to an entire populace who are suffering the side effects of the treatment unnecessarily while it is only a minority who are afflicted.



There is no proof that rates are down because of it - only flawed statistical conjecture.

If we can decompose drivers in to the good the bad and the ugly (v. good, normal and unsafe).

We probably have a diamond shape distribution with very few v. good and very few unsafe. Noting that where you sit may change day to day, hour to hour depending on your injfluences.

Those who are most at risk may benefit from increased alertness. Everyone else will be negatively affected, but the increased accident risk may mean a fault accident every 5 years instead of 7.

One thing that we have all blamed cameras for is accident displacement. Take a popular biking road, drop the limit and add heavy enforcement and you will reduce accidents on that road. The reason is not increased safety but displacement. Riders search for B roads instead of A roads which although the risk is higher, oncoming traffic is less.

If we target a whole area, is there a risk of temporarily displacing the accident off the road (i.e. person stays at home)? Afterall the best way to reduce vehicle KSIs is not to have vehicles on the roads.

The welsh tourist office complained that North wales had become a 'no go' area for holiday makers fed up with arriving home to find a brown envelope. Has Cumbria gone the same way.

If there are fewer vehicles, there will be fewer accidents. NW has claimed tickets have fallen - are people 'getting the message' or avoiding the area?


IMO speed enforcement can reduce accidents (creaming off the top), but only very few and the social impact of wide spread enforcement is undesirable.

is a 1 or 2% accident reduction worth 3,000,000 drivers being impacted negatively every year. when we could reduce accidents by much more without negative impact.