Safe Speed Forums

Cameras help cut A77 death toll

The cameras check the average speed of cars on the road

The number of people killed or seriously injured on a stretch of the A77 in Ayrshire has halved since the introduction of average speed cameras.

The number of casualties dropped from an average of about 22 a year before cameras were introduced in August 2005, to about 11 a year afterwards.

The figures have been released by the A77 Safety Group.

It said the number of fatal or serious accidents had also gone down by more than a third.

Hugh McCafferty, from Transport Scotland and chair of the A77 Safety Group, said: "We know speed often plays a major part in both the cause of accidents and the resulting severity, this would appear to be borne out by the interim figures.

"Looking beyond the figures, the initiatives on the A77 have reduced the personal tragedy experienced by individuals, families, friends and colleagues.

"This is what the A77 Safety Group is trying to achieve. The most important element in road safety is always the road users."

The number of deaths or serious casualties dropped from an average of 21.7 before the cameras came in, to 11 after two years in operation.

The effectiveness of the system will be fully assessed after it has run the third year of its trial on the 32-mile stretch, from Bogend Toll north of Ayr to Ardwell Bay south of Girvan.

PR556: A77 Specs: WE DON'T BELIEVE IT!

news: for immediate release

Some strong claims have been made today for the A77 'SPECS' digital speed
cameras.

To make these claims as a genuine indication of improved safety is absurd, says
Safe Speed.

- According to Department for Transport only 1 in 20 injury crashes (5%)
involve any speeding vehicle. If only 5% of crashes involve speeding how is it
supposed to be possible that a speed camera can reduce crashes by 50%?

- The A77 was widely reported as being subjected to a £20m improvement
programme. How much of this in place? How much of the reduction in crashes
claimed is due to engineering improvements?

- It's known that thrill seeking road users will avoid speed camera routes.
This doesn't prevent crashes - they just happen somewhere else.

- It's known that speed cameras cause a degree of traffic reduction as some
motorists prefer to find routes without cameras.

- We expect that there's been a degree of 'cherry picking' in the comparison
groups. It's often possible to 'talk up' the figures by choosing 2 years
instead of three years - or similar. Then there's the option of which crash
severity group they have chosen to highlight. Were fewer people killed? I doubt
it or they would have been shouting that from the rooftops.

- SPECS cameras were only considered for the A77 because of a particularly bad
spell. After a particularly bad spell, it's common for crashes to reduce back
down to the long term trend anyway. This effect, called regression to the mean,
is frequently claimed as a benefit for speed cameras. But doing so is no more
and no less than a fraud.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "These claims are nonsense and
we don't believe them. It simply does not make sense to get a 50% reduction in
crashes while purporting to address the cause of 5% of crashes. Some people
think that speed cameras are 'magic accident reducing machines' - and wouldn't
it be nice if they were! Unfortunately there's no such thing."

"Speed cameras have been a road safety disaster. I hate to see self-serving
spin and wild claims. It should be obvious that bad information in road safety
will cause life saving resources to be misallocated - and this is undoubtedly
bad information. We're going to have to scrap speed cameras before we can get
road safety back on track."

"Speed cameras reduced crashes by 50%? Don't make me laugh! We're not fools!"

<ends>

I'm sure its not a new concept per se, but when they make wild claims like these, might it not be advantageous to the understanding of the common man to challenge them to produce the before and after figures of casualties caused in any part by exceeding the speed limit, and certainly to use the numbers of KSI accidents rather than casualties (bus crash scenario).

I know its like teaching all the intelligent people here to suck eggs, but I have to highlight the fact that if none of the 'about 22' casualties per year prior to the installation were attributable to speeding, and every single one of the 11 per year subsequently were, and all 11 duly received their tickets a fortnight after their demise, then it actually highlights an abject failure of the much-vaunted policy!!

Remember that horrendous accident on the M4 in fog? No camera partnerships around then (I think) but casualties were reduced by (pick a figure) 80% the following year

More Fudge than a sugar factory.

How much fudge does a sugar factory have?