Safe Speed Forums

A BMJ paper is about to hit the news. At 15:40 this afternoon Safe Speed issued the following press release:

PR164: BMJ highlights poor quality of speed camera research.

News: for immediate release

A short paper published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)
highlights the serious shortcomings of speed camera research. Safe
Speed welcomes the paper and draws attention to an important and
fundamental omission.

The BMJ paper contains no new research, instead it analyses available
research for content, quality and conclusions. Safe Speed broadly
agrees with the paper's main conclusions which are:

* Speed camera research tends to find a benefit "at speed camera
sites".

* The quality of the research is very poor.

Safe Speed has long been drawing attention to the very poor quality of
available research.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The main reason for the poor quality of
the research seems to be the influence of vested interests. Much of
the research has been commissioned by those with an interest in the
outcome and this has led to some very bad science."

"However the report completely ignores the factors that we consider
the most important. Speed cameras don't just slow us down, they alter
the way we think and the things we pay attention to. Most drivers
report a very significant shift in the way that they drive in the
speed camera era - they pay far more attention to the risk of cameras
and the number on the speedo.There is no justification for this change
in priorities - the squandered driver attention to the road ahead is
far more important to road safety any general speed reduction."

"It is clearly insufficient to consider the effect of cameras on
crashes at speed camera sites. We must also consider the effect on the
wider road network."

"Do not make the mistake of thinking that such effects are
insignificant. Yes, in any individual the effect is small, but the
net effect on 32 million drivers has already cost 8,000 lives
according to our best estimates."

Speed cameras are not making the roads safer. They alter the way we
think when we're driving and not for the better. We must scrap all
speed cameras and get back to the excellent road safety policies that
gave us the safest roads in the world in the first place. Those
policies were based on skills, attitudes and responsibilities, and
those are the things that really matter.

<ends>

Notes for editors:

BMJ ref: BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38324.646574.AE

Title of paper: "Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road
traffic collisions and related casualties: systematic review"

Available at:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/bmj001.pdf

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

A pity the authors didn't look at SafeSpeed.

In other words - despite the hype, the scam merchants cannot prove scam save lives - any more than one can prove they claim lives.

There is much more to road safey than speed and a speed cam - and a great pity as Observer rightly says that they did not look at this site first

.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

There's an appendix to the BMJ paper, that I've now been sent:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/bmj002.pdf

In their "search for papers" they say they searched the Safe Speed site. Clearly they didn't find any "papers".

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

The paper exists on the BMJ website at:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... 0/7487/331

The BMJ publication process provides for responses. I sent the following:

Safe Speed response

It is a great shame that Paul Pilkington did not reveal his prior opinions nor declare an apparent commercial interest[1].

Given his prejudice, it is extremely worrying that he could find no truly substantial evidence of casualty reductions at speed camera sites.

But even if we had excellent evidence of casualty reduction at speed camera sites that would be insufficient to justify the use of speed cameras without also considering effects on drivers across the entire road network.

This is a well known problem. Another paper [2] contains the following warning: "Consider system effects. Injury prevention measures may have effects beyond the individual actions they influence directly. These effects may be harmful or helpful. Always consider potential system effects."

I am absolutely certain that there are very important and substantial negative "system effects" relating to speed cameras. I have studied how drivers routinely avoid road crashes for 20 years and the four critical factors are undoubtedly: concentration, observation, anticipation and attitude. Speed in excess of a speed limit is never a critical factor unless there is also a shortfall in the critical 4. By and large, drivers make responsible speed choices to the point where causing an injury collision is a once in 150 year experience for the average licenced driver.[3]

It is sometimes argued that speed reductions will serve to reduce the severity of "inevitable" impacts. However, real world average impact speeds are far lower than the free travelling speeds that might be effected by speed limits and speed cameras. This is partly because crashes can only take place where there are road hazards and successful drivers routinely slow down where hazards are present.

Even after a serious driver error, there is usually time to brake before impact. The effectiveness of braking before impact is most affected by the instant of recognition of the problem, and far less affected by a speed chosen by a responsible driver. In fact speed choice sets the absolute maximum impact speed, while the moment of recognition often enables a crash to be avoided completely. The average is between these two extremes and is far more affected by changes in the moment of recognition than changes in free travelling speeds.

The bad news for proponents of speed cameras is that, in practice, they undermine 2 of the 4 critical factors in routine crash avoidance.

Observation is undermined because speed cameras encourage much more frequent speedo checking (while an experienced driver does not need to check his speedo at all to drive safely.)

Attitudes are undermined because speed cameras are threatening to drivers. We can see one example of a serious attitude effect in the under-researched "race away" crashes described by Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom in a Times article[4]. He said: "We have a particular problem with motorcyclists slowing down for the cameras but then speeding up and dying on the next corner."

Another attitude problem is that many drivers may be deluded into considering that a speed choice 'must be safe' because it meets legal requirements. Nothing could be further from the truth - 30mph is potentially a deadly speed.

If we were eventually successful at reducing speeds generally the essential process of acquiring driving experience would be adversely affected. [5] Driving experience is closely related to the key component anticipation and also affects concentration and observation skills.

The speed camera debate is vast and is far too frequently undermined by oversimplified thinking. It is only when drivers' thought processes and routine accident avoidance strategies are carefully considered that the complete bankruptcy of the technology emerges.

<ends>

[1] http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/4/293
and http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... 346/1153/a
and http://bcc.gn.apc.org/tbc/2002/winter/speedcams.html
[2] http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/6/2/82
[3] 32million licenced drivers / 214,000 injury crashes in 2003 (source DfT)
[4] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 62,00.html
[5] http://www.safespeed.org.uk/problem2.html

=========================================

It's not published yet because responses are reviewed by an editor for content and libel. I expect it to be published within 24 hours.

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

Excellently written, Paul.
I especially like the points about the "four critical factors", I believe that this is a powerful road-safety & driving psychology message to get across. And the BMJ readership are intellegent enough to appreciate it.

The BMJ published my letter as a "rapid response":

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7487/331

There's a collection of responses developing.

There are also rapid responses to a brief editorial (This week in BMJ) introducing the Pilkington article:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... 0/7487/0-c

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

The collection of responses is fast growing and very Safe Speed aligned.

Doctors are intelligent aren't they?

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