Safe Speed Forums

The speed camera programme has been thrown into disarray after the Government admitted its casualty calculations could be flawed.

The Department for Transport (DfT) justifies the use of more than 6,000 cameras across the country on the grounds that they cut road deaths and serious injuries.

But now these figures have been called into question and critics say this could undermine the entire programme, which brings in more than £100 million in fines every year.
advertisement


In what speed camera critics are describing as an embarrassing about-turn, the DfT is to re-evaluate the way it works out the number of serious injuries reported on the roads.

It had relied on the figures gathered by police rather than hospital admissions but the discrepancy between the two has forced officials to look again.

According to the police, the number of serious injuries between 1996 and 2004 fell from 79.7 per 100,000 to 54. The corresponding figures from hospitals showed a rise from 88.8 to 90.1.

Whitehall had insisted the police figures were robust and that there was no need to use the hospital data.

But later this month the DfT will publish its findings on whether it should use hospital admissions figures as a basis for future policy.

"We have put our entire road safety programme into a box marked speed cameras," said Kevin Delaney, the Metropolitan Police's former head of traffic.

"The figures were the justification for the policy and if they are called into doubt the whole thing is undermined."

Speed cameras have been a crucial part of the Government's road safety strategy.

It set itself the target of cutting the number of people who were killed and seriously injured in 2010 to 60 per cent of the annual average between 1994-98.

Over the past decade police reports had been encouraging.

While the number of people killed on the roads has fallen dramatically since the advent of speed cameras, the number seriously injured has been a matter of debate.

The definition of serious injury has been unchanged since 1953 and sets a number of criteria, including whether the person is treated as an in-patient or has suffered a fracture or internal injuries.

A police officer has to make a judgement, often without knowing the extent of the injuries or whether the victim was admitted to hospital. However, the hospital figures are based on whether a doctor has decided to admit an individual.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed campaign and a critic of speed cameras, dismissed the DfT's decision to review the way in which it compiled its figures.

"The further investigation itself is an obfuscation," he said. "It is putting off the evil day when they will have to admit that their statistics and their targets have not been working for a decade."

A DfT spokesman insisted that the re-examination of the way the statistics are compiled did not undermine the speed camera programme.

"Hospital data only covers injuries, not fatalities. Road fatalities have fallen by 11 per cent since the mid-1990s," he said.

"Independent research shows that safety cameras help to save around 100 lives per year."

Speed camera figures:

Amount raised in fines by cameras in 2005-06 - £114.6m

Cost of running scheme - £99.5m

Surplus from cameras - £15.1m

Estimated number of cameras - 6000

Number of safety camera partnerships - 38

Points on a licence for being caught speeding - 3

"Hospital data only covers injuries, not fatalities. Road fatalities have fallen by 11 per cent since the mid-1990s," he said.

"Independent research shows that safety cameras help to save around 100 lives per year."

Nevertheless, the 4 th year report proudly proclaims that speed cameras are saving ‘100 lives per year’. Examination of the text reveals that this figure is derived before adjustment for regression to the mean effect
has been applied. Applying the correction revises the estimate to around 25 lives per year saved. However, various factors still have not been accounted for.

The most important neglected factor – or rather series of factors – are the accumulated negative side effects of speed cameras and speed camera policy. Many of these side effects apply across the entire road network.

And how much of that was thanks to car design, road engineering and improved care?

Letter to My MP Sandra Gidley (Lib Dem)


19 July 2007

Speed cameras, Road deaths and NHS Costs

I see from your record in the House of Commons that you are very interested in health matters and its funding for drugs. I wanted to show you how speed cameras are not saving lives or reducing NHS costs as the Speed Camera Partnerships are claiming.

The British Medical Journal published research that concluded that HES admissions were the same yet police claimed a reduction of KSI.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.388 ... v1.pdf?q=y

Further evidence that policies are not reducing death and injury on our roads came last month when the latest official stats revealed that 20% more children are dead nationally + 5% more motorcyclists.

The number of traffic police in England and Wales has fallen from 7,525 in 1999 to 6,511 last year, a reduction of 13%. The UK once boasted having the safest roads in Europe, we have now witnessed this title fall away to 7th place. The UK being relegated to 7th place came as a result of only reducing road deaths by 1%, while the rest of Europe reduced road deaths by 4%. As speed cameras are not having the desired effect on reducing road deaths, one can only assume this relegation to 7th place is a result of the reduction in UK police and failed policies?
(Source of information: EuroRAP 2007 tracking survey)

We were very successful until we introduced speed cameras and then we forgot all other policies on road safety and decided to prosecute and congest our way to safer roads. It has not worked. The trend indicated that If we had continued working hard on road safety we would be saving 1000 lives a year.

We have devalued the driving licence points system, forced thousands of motorists to drive on cloned plates, forced cyclists off the road to the pavements and elderly pedestrians to stay at home because of the cyclists.

The official response to the scrap speed cameras petition claimed:
Quote:
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on the Number 10 website. Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain. The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy. We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few years. Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives. Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's roads each year. And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our road safety strategy

Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in
Great Britain.
* No it isn't. According to Department for Transport figures exceeding a speed
limit it is a contributory factor in 12% of fatal crashes. We know that many of
those are caused by reckless and 'abnormal' driver behaviour.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221 ... oadacc1802
See table 6.

This statement was the biggest load of fiction I have read. “Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously injured,” Why don’t these reductions show up in British road stats, European road stats, Hospital admissions?

“We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits” Car passengers are indeed doing well with significant reductions in injuries. Pedestrians are doing worse. But they are taking more risks including poor choice of route and excessive use of alcohol. The introduction of 24-hour drinking laws appear to have trebled alcohol-related admissions to A&E departments in inner city areas at night.

On the subject of alcohol, drink drive is increasing. Rather than enforce our existing laws or understand who is having what accidents at what blood alcohol levels there was a knee jerk reaction calling for lower alcohol levels.

Lets have real stats rather than spin, real policies rather then knee jerk reactions. I am sure with the correct road policies the savings in the NHS will be there to be spent on cancer drugs, MS drugs Stem cell research and the many other departments under pressure.

Please can you ask the DFT on my behalf
1. Why the DFT gave incorrect “speeding kills stats” as a response to the scrap camera petition?
2. Why the NHS hospital admissions do not match the reduction in KSI
3. Why the UK is only reducing road deaths by 1% compared to Europe’s 4%
4. Why child road deaths rose 20% last year; Yet camera partnerships smugly claimed successes?

Department for
Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P4DR
Tel: 020 7944 3082 Fax: 020 7944 4492 E-Mail: rosie.winterton@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Web site: www.dft.gov.uk Our Ref: RK/JF/018996/07
24/aug/2007

From the Minister of State Rt Hon Rosie Winterton MP
To Sandra Gidley MP House of Commons LONDON SW1AOAA

Thank you for your letter of 2 August addressed to Ruth Kelly enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr Anton, Southampton, regarding speed cameras and accident rates. I am replying as Duty Minister.
Mr Anton is not right to claim that the Government's response to the recent e-petition to scrap speed cameras was incorrect. The latest Department for Transport figures suggest that exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for conditions is a contributory factor in 15% of all accidents, and 26% of fatal accidents. This is not insignificant. Furthermore, we should stress that we have always emphasised that it is important both to respect the speed limit and to drive at a speed which is appropriate for the conditions, which will often be less than the speed limit. That is why the use of safety cameras is just one part of the road safety toolkit.
Recent comparisons of the national road accident reporting system (STATS 19) with hospital admissions data (Hospital Episodes Statistics - HES) have raised a question about possible changes in levels of reporting of road accidents. Differences between the two series may reflect one or a combination of factors including changes in levels of reporting to the police, a decline in the number of less severe and non hospitalised casualties which are still classed as serious in STATS 19, or changes in hospital systems, admissions policy or best practice. Work carried out so far does not indicate which of the factors mentioned above (or others) are significant. HES is a comparatively new source of data on road casualties, it is still developing and this means that it is not suitable for measuring trends. Further information can be found on the Department's web site at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... ingrea1835

Moving on to the issue of the UK's road safety record compared to that of Europe, we still have some of the safest roads in the world. The figures as presented in the report Mr Anton refers to are not the best method of measuring and contrasting this information, as each country has a different level of mobility and travel by road. If put in context - fatalities per 100 billion passenger kilometres - the UK is still very much ahead of most of Europe. At 49 fatalities per 10 billion passenger kilometres this measurement sees the UK ranked as number 2 in terms of safety.
.
Finally, on the issue of child fatalities, these rose by 20 per cent from 141 in 2005 to 169 in 2006. Although this is disappointing, it is about the same level as 2004 when there were 166 fatalities, which at the time was the lowest recorded figure. These numbers are small and the percentage changes are therefore subject to fluctuation.
Mr Anton will be pleased to know that the total numbers of child casualties dropped by 9 per cent in 2006 compared to 2005. Numbers of children seriously injured dropped by 6 per cent from 3,331 to 3,125. Numbers of children slightly injured dropped by 10 per cent. We would add that our target of reducing the number of children killed or seriously injured (KSI) by 50% by 2010, compared with the 1994-98 average, has already been exceeded - by 2006 the number of child KSI's was 52% below the 1994-98 average. I hope this reply is helpful.

ROSIE WINTERTON

While the number of people killed on the roads has fallen dramatically since the advent of speed cameras, the number seriously injured has been a matter of debate.

"We have put our entire road safety programme into a box marked speed cameras," said Kevin Delaney, the Metropolitan Police's former head of traffic.

That is why the use of safety cameras is just one part of the road safety toolkit. Rosie wintereton

So the question is rosie... what is the rest of the safety tool kit?

And how much of that was thanks to car design,