Safe Speed Forums

When I questionned them about the SPECS system. I also asked about how many accidents were caused solely by excessive speeds:


"The system has been installed because speed is seen to be a major contributor to the occurrence of accidents on that stretch of road. Some of this would be classed as 'inappropriate speed' but a significant proportion clearly involves 'excessive speed' - ie. in excess of the legal speed limit.
Quite understandably there is huge concern at the accident and casualty record on the road among the people who live by and use the A77. The A77 Safety Group was set up specifically to enable an integrated set of measures to be put in place. It encompasses road engineering, driver education and encouragement and speed enforcement. Public consultation in 2004 showed massive local support for more measures to be taken on road safety and within this demands for action to tackle speeding ranked highly. The SPECS 'average speed' systems already operating in England have demonstrated significant casualty reduction. This first trial of the system in Scotland is seen as offering an effective and appropriate speed reduction method, well-suited to the particular crash incidence of the A77 and it will be monitored by the Scottish Safety Camera Programme. Its purpose is deterrence, it is highly visible and has frequent warning signage and we hope that drivers tempted to speed will not ignore this.

The number of serious accidents at safety camera sites in Strathclyde continues to drop and we are looking forward to the publication of the 4 year report by University College London. It is worth also noting that the number of offenders in Strathclyde is also falling significantly and we are greatly encouraged by this confirmation of the deterrence effect of our cameras.

With regard to the specific query with which you end your message, I am assuming that you are referring to the 20 deaths on the Bogend to Ardwell section between 2000 and 2004. The answer to the question "what proportion of fatal accidents were caused solely by excessive speed" is none. Crash investigators will tell you that crashes caused by sole factors are very rare indeed, they are almost inevitably the result of a combination of factors. In addition, 'excessive speed' is not usually the recorded cause as this will more usually be the last action in the sequence of events - eg 'failure to take bend', 'making right turn' etc. However, excessive speed is frequently the major contributor to a crash and particularly the severity of personal injuries sustained.

Out of the 20 deaths occurring in the 13 fatal crashes between 2000 and 2004, it is estimated that excessive speed was a key factor in seven of these crashes, resulting in 13 deaths. "



Zero crashes caused solely by excessive speed?? Why the need for a multi million pound SPECS system then? I love the way he tells us that crashes are not caused by sole factors - so why the bloody insistence that speed causes a bloody third of them?

This sort of twisting of the language really gets on my thrupenny bits. They're trying to sell "illegal" as "excessive" knowing damn well that in many people's minds "excessive" will be synonomous with "inappropriate". The reality is that "inappropriate" includes speed which is too low and speed which is too high, and only the latter can be described as "excessive". The limit doesn't enter into it.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Sorry, I couldn't see where in the letter he said that speed causes one-third of the fatal accidents. What I think he said was that of 20 people killed in 13 separate accidents a total of 7 had excessive speed (which he clearly defines as speed in excess of the posted limit) as a contributory factor. This lookls like breaking the speed limit was a factor in over 50% of fatal accidents, conflicting with the national appaent average of 5% to 7%. How is this disparity achieved. Are the drivers on the A77 worse than elsewhere? ou can't blame a road, only direct user factors can be considered.
If we are to beat these people we must not mis-quote them.
Presuming his figures are right, then the justification in the minds of many for SPECS cameras is understandable. After all, they can't lose money with them and it's hard to disprove their effectiveness overall, much as we may believe otherwise.

Sorry, I meant the 1/3 lie in general - not this chap's specific data.

He said that "Crash investigators will tell you that crashes caused by sole factors are very rare indeed, they are almost inevitably the result of a combination of factors"

The government tell us that 1/3 of accidents are caused by speeding - somewhat of a contradiction?

Perhaps ask him how many of those 'excessive speed' fatal crashes were caused or contributed to by otherwise lawful motorists exceeding a speed limit.

Speeding drunks, motor racing on the highway, reckless driving and so on don't count because specs cannot affect them.

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

I sent this back:

Neil,

Thanks for your response- I have a few further comments which I would appreciate a reply to when you have time!

>The system has been installed because speed is seen to be a major
>contributor to the occurrence of >accidents on that stretch of road.
>Some of this would be classed as 'inappropriate speed' but a
>significant proportion clearly involves 'excessive speed' - ie. in
>excess of the legal speedlimit

Neil, Excessive speed is not "speed in excess of the legal speed limit" from a safety point of view, it is simply exceeding a numerical limit which makes no account of conditions on the roads (nor do cameras). Driving past a pile of parked cars parked either side of the road next to a school at leaving time at 29 mph may be "Excessive" but it's not illegal. My point basically is that numerical speed limits are simply that - and say nothing about road safety and conditions - if you want to promote safety you have to look outside the car and drive it, not at your speedometer. If your speedometer broke tomorrow, would it make any difference to safety? You could argue it would improve safety as you wouldn't have to keep staring at the speedometer when driving through camera sites to make sure you're legal - although you may well be banned from driving as a result of 4 flashes. Do people really deserve that? Is it fair to ban someone and possibly cost them their entire livelihoods for absolute technical offences when they may have been driving perfectly safely through these so called "Safety" cameras...

>The number of serious accidents at safety camera sites in Strathclyde
>continues to drop and we are >looking forward to the publication of the 4 year report by University College London. It is worth >also noting that the number of offenders in Strathclyde is also falling significantly and we are greatly encouraged by this confirmation of the deterrence effect of our cameras.

When you make reference to your accident statistics dropping, what period of analysis are you using? I presume you are taking at least 4 years before and 4 years after the cameras were installed to give a reasonably accurate pictures, rather than the following situation which SCPs quote far too often in their spin:

1998: 1 crash
1999: 1 crash
2000: 1 crash
2001: 1 crash
2002: 3 crashes [camera installed]
2003: 1 crash
2004: 1 crash
2005: 1 crash

Then the punchline: "Crashes have reduced by 66% at the camera site since the camera was installed". It is sobering to note that in a lot of cases around the UK, the crashes have increased in the years since the cameras were installed (compared to fewer crashes in the years before).

Finally,

What do you think of the significant post-SCP increase in fatalities in counties where speed cameras have been used excessively - such as Leicestershire, Cumbria and North Wales, which are performing far worse relative to counties such as North Yorkshire, Merseyside and Durham which do not have SCPs? Do you agree with the fact that these counties have raised millions and millions of pounds in fines with absolutely no return in safety benefits?

Regards,
Martin

This is sidestepping the question and they know it.



Estimate?

Ask them how many had speed in excess of the posted limit as the main or a major (not the only) cause.

They have swerved the answer by answering your question exactly. They know what you are after and they know if the real answer gets out then they will look like a bunch of right wallies.