In my original message yesterday, I promised a follow-up with detailed arguments to support my case. This is that message. I have included the original message (with a couple of changes) at the start. The detail follows immediately after.This email exposes the fact that not only do speed cameras make our roads less safe, it reveals that the authorities promoting them and responsible for their use (DfT, Highways Agency and many others) know that cameras are detrimental to road safety and yet they continue to make bogus claims for their effectiveness. Those same authorities also believe that it is tolerable to continue with their use while drivers learn how to mitigate the negative side effects that they cause.
As a safety professional (responsible for safety cases for systems as diverse as air traffic control radars and weapons), I find that not just unacceptable, but wilfully and criminally negligent.
The use of speed cameras (fixed, mobile and average speed) must be suspended as quickly as possible.
You have a duty of care to minimise the risk to the public caused by measures taken to improve road safety. You are failing in that duty every day that a speed camera remains on a UK road.
Over the past two years I have corresponded with numerous road safety individuals and bodies across the UK and beyond (including most of those on this email distribution), looking at the evidence used to support claims such as “speed cameras save lives”. I have reached the conclusion that no such evidence exists. There are plenty of examples of dramatic falls in collisions and casualties after cameras are installed, but what is lacking is any evidence that the camera has made a positive contribution to this outcome; the supposedly impressive results are actually due to statistics and trends and other effects. The Four Year Evaluation Report compiled in 2005 is often cited as proof that cameras are effective but includes no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.
In recent months, average speed cameras (ASC) have been hailed as revolutionary – avoiding the problems of distraction and sudden braking associated with fixed/mobile cameras. But when the Highways Agency recently sent me a copy of “Safety Camera Technology at Roadworks – Final Report, March 2008”, I found that it conceded that several hazards are created by the deployment of ASCs:
· Sudden braking
· Distraction
· Reduced headway (time between vehicles) - exacerbated by the sudden braking
· Lane changing
The report also acknowledges that there are no proven safety benefits (collision/casualty reduction) and that driver education campaigns may become of increased importance to encourage “correct behaviour”.
These conclusions are all the more surprising when you realise that the participants in this study were employees of the HA or the consultancy preparing the report (many subjective comments suggest that they are predisposed to the “potential benefits of speed cameras”).
The HA report can be downloaded from
http://www.ha-research.gov.uk/projects/ ... hp?id=1258Safety engineering is guided by a number of principles, one of the most important being the order of precedence for methods to address hazards, as follows:
1. Eliminate the hazard.
2. Reduce the risk associated with the hazard or accident by implementing engineered mitigation strategies (such as safety interlocks such as the safety catch on a gun).
3. Reduce the risk associated with the hazard or accident by implementing mitigation strategies based on human factors (labelling, training or procedures).
In the case of ASCs, the source of the hazard is clear – it's the introduction of the cameras. It is no more than wishful thinking that drivers can be educated to deal with that hazard - that is very poor, indeed culpable, safety engineering.
As there is no safety argument for using the cameras, the first choice is to remove the cause of the hazard (i.e. take away the camera); increased signage and driver education (as proposed by the report) to mitigate the hazard are covered by number 3 on the list and are therefore much less satisfactory and will never be as beneficial as eliminating the source of the hazard.
A “safety device” that actually reduces road safety until drivers adjust to it is totally alien to all safety thinking and culture.
The HA report was comparing ASCs with fixed cameras, concluding that ASCs had fewer drawbacks. I have explained above that there is no safety argument for the deployment of ASCs, and it therefore follows that no speed camera should be allowed to be deployed on our roads as it is clearly decreasing road safety. Mobile cameras are worse than fixed cameras in this respect.
To support my claim about distraction, the following story appeared in the press in the last week:
It was bad enough for Tony Allen to see motorists constantly speeding through his village at way above the 30mph limit. But when an uninsured driver ploughed into his garden wall causing £3,500 damage, he decided that was the last straw. The 60-year-old builder constructed his own mock speed camera from a wooden box painted yellow, complete with a silver foil flash and lens, and installed it in his front garden. Tony Allen says he will not remove a mock speed camera from his front yard, despite the potential for legal action. But police have warned Mr Allen that he could face legal action if a motorist should crash and claim that the fake camera was a distraction.
The corollary is that any crash near a real speed camera could result in a claim of distraction. I know of at least two cases in the UK where a coroner has cited a speed camera as a contributory factor to the death, distraction in both instances.
There was a collision in the TOD enforced roadworks on the M25 in Essex this morning.
For about five months, until March this year, I presented evidence and arguments to officers at the DfT (Mike Fawcett and his team) but it was clear that they were not interested in facts that challenged their cherished view that speed cameras performed road safety miracles. This shocked me and caused me to look even deeper into this "speed camera industry" and the influence of the many vested interests (I am convinced that many are open to accusations of fraud).
I have deliberately circulated this email widely, including many of the individuals and organisations who have, sometimes unwittingly, provided me with the evidence against speed cameras summarised in this message. I have done this firstly to fulfil a peer review process – if anyone can prove that any of my claims are wrong, I would be pleased to hear from them. Secondly, I want to draw the attention of as many people as possible (including the Transport Select Committee and journalists) to the £100 million a year scandal (the approximate amount spent on procuring, operating and maintaining speed cameras) that is having a detrimental effect on road safety while Crown servants issue statements about speed cameras that are palpably untrue.
Only last week, over a tenth of Paul Clark's speech at the PACTS Conference amounted to a defence of speed cameras (including attributing reductions in killed and seriously injured of 42% and 50% - “Early evidence suggests they [average speed cameras] can deliver a 50% reduction in deaths and serious injuries”).
Speed cameras have now been in use for around 15 years; if they really “worked”, there would be no need for government ministers to spend valuable time defending their use through such risible claims - their results would speak for themselves.
I have seen counter claims that speed cameras have arrested the previous downward trend in road casualties, even claiming that, had the downward trend continued there would have been 10,000 fewer deaths over those 15 years. I’ve not checked the calculations in detail but, from a safety viewpoint, given the many negative effects that cameras have on driving, I consider that a credible, and tragic, outcome - certainly more credible than reductions of 40% or 50%.
The conclusion from this is that speed cameras must be phased out as quickly as possible (a few months maximum) – with the money saved being diverted to driver education programmes and increased police patrols.
Please note that, although I have contact with organisations such as SafeSpeed and the ABD, I am not a member of any of them nor do I have any affiliation. I have used my safety engineering expertise, coupled with my experience gained during my time as a former Chairman of the London and Herts RoSPA Advanced Drivers Group, to form an independent view. It is clear that, until now, there has been a paucity of independence in the assessment of speed camera effectiveness.
I look forward to hearing from you and would be willing to meet to discuss this matter.
I also welcome contact from any recipients of this message but please note that I work full time.
The remainder of this message provides detailed evidence and argument for the statements that I make above. I have accumulated material to support every claim that I make.
===========================
I begin with my assessment of “Safety Camera Technology at Roadworks – Final Report, March 2008”, published by the Highways Agency.
Firstly, a few overall comments (note that the terms TOD (time over distance) and ASC (average speed cameras) are used to mean the same thing):
1. The main thrust of the HA report is that TODs are better than fixed cameras because they do not cause as much sudden braking or distraction – but they still cause hazardous driving behaviour such as sudden braking, distraction/glances at speedometer, reduced headway (time between vehicles) and lane changing.
2. The report acknowledges that “no reliable, detailed, or above all statistically significant evidence has so far been found regarding the impacts of TODs, be it on roads with or without roadworks”. There is nothing in the report to claim that TODs improve road safety.
3. Participants are employees of the HA or the consultancy (Scott Wilson) and, from most of the comments, are pre-disposed to the idea that speed cameras will bring benefits, if only drivers knew how to respond to them.
4. A key recommendation is that drivers need to be educated to mitigate the hazards introduced by speed cameras.
In summary, TODs trigger hazardous driving behaviour and have no proven road safety benefit. The safety case for their use is therefore non-existent.
The same argument applies to fixed and mobile cameras, which are acknowledged by all to have even worse effects on driver behaviour.
It follows that all speed cameras (TOD, fixed and mobile) should be removed from our roads.
Detailed comments and extracts from the HA report are:
1.1.9 (bullet 4) Driver glance patterns at TOD enforced roadworks can differ substantially from the norm (evidence of both greater and less distraction has been found
1.1.10 A questionnaire … has revealed that while TOD enforcement is viewed more favourably by the public …. There is still a lack of understanding of the (potentially) beneficial effects that TOD enforcement may have.
This comment presumes that there are benefits from speed cameras. I have seen no conclusive evidence of benefits from the use of any speed camera deployment. This comment is based on a false premise.
1.1.12 bullet 2 public outreach/driver education campaigns may become of increased importance to encourage “correct behaviour” that will in turn enhance operational efficiency of roadworks.
Another dangerously misguided comment – this is referring to the need to educate drivers in order to reduce the hazards to the public caused by the cameras.
Safety engineering aims to eliminate hazards, failing that implement engineering mitigations to reduce the risk, and finally develop training and procedures to use the system safely.
A supposed safety system that introduces risk to the public, which can be mitigated only by human factors solutions is no safety system at all and cannot be deployed.
1.1.14 “there are still issues needing to be resolved including …. Safety issues potentially arising from reduced, and more consistent, headways, as well as complex driver distraction issues.”
3.1.3 bullet 3 “although figures are in print, no reliable, detailed, or above all statistically significant evidence has so been found regarding the impacts of TOD systems, be it on roads with or without roadworks”
This comment could equally be said for any speed cameras.
4.1.5 In the case of TOD enforcement such behaviour [surfing] is futile with sudden decelerations producing only small changes in the overall transit time, however that is not to say that it may not occur due to the lack of understanding on the part of the driver.
It does happen – I see it frequently at “vultures”, and near collisions as a result. This is confirmed in para 4.1.10, which refers to excessive braking, near misses and “knock-on” accidents.
6.1.2/3 Participants were recruited from HA (and had some working knowledge of speed enforcement systems) and through family and friends of Scott Wilson project staff.
The fact that these participants were not at all independent seriously undermines any positive claims for the benefits of TOD speed cameras and actually makes the criticisms and perceived problems all the more damning.
6.2.4 9% of drivers passing TOD cameras braked heavily.
All unpredictable braking events are hazardous. The fact that there are only a third as many for TOD as there are for fixed cameras is not a recommendation to use TOD – it is a comment that both are hazardous.
6.2.30 “the need to monitor one’s speed between camera points is essential to ensure compliance and hence the driver may have to make a number of continued checks on (and thereby be distracted by the need for increased observance of) their speedometer.”
7.2.2 The report compares an average 0.75 injury accidents per over the previous 3 years over the span of the site (with no road works) to zero over the three months of the TOD enforced roadworks. It acknowledges that these figures cannot be used to draw conclusions about the safety benefits of TOD cameras. In fact, given that they are comparing a stretch of road with and without roadworks, with different speed limits, enforcement, and other engineering (cones, signage, etc.) there are so many confounding variables it would be impossible to draw any safety conclusions from this study. This point is reflected in the last bullet of 8.1.1.
10.1.2 “[the project] has found little clear, scientifically significant evidence on the effects of either [TOD or fixed cameras]. This paucity is particularly noticeable with respect to TOD enforcement…”
In summary, I found that the report acknowledged that several hazards are created by the deployment of ASCs:
· Sudden braking
· Distraction
· Reduced headway (time between vehicles) - exacerbated by the sudden braking
· Lane changing
The report also acknowledges that there are no proven safety benefits (collision/casualty reduction) from any speed camera system and that driver education campaigns may become of increased importance to encourage “correct behaviour” with TODs.
These conclusions are all the more surprising when you realise that the participants in this study were employees (or their friends/family) of the HA or the consultancy preparing the report. Many subjective comments suggest that they are predisposed to the “potential benefits of speed cameras”.
Evidence of Effectiveness
The National Safety Camera Programme Four Year Evaluation Report, prepared by PA Consulting, was published in Dec 2005 and is often quoted or cited as proof that cameras “work”. It used the following four so-called measures of effectiveness:
1. “vehicle speeds were down at camera sites" - with no clear link to road safety improvement in terms of likelihood of collisions, and hence no proven road safety benefit.
2. "casualties and deaths were down at camera sites" – but, given that cameras are installed after an atypically high cluster of collisions, selection effects such as regression to the mean would virtually guarantee that was always likely to happen, regardless of any measures taken at the sites. The report did not attempt to establish any credible causal link between the presence of the camera and the reductions in collisions. I will return to this point later.
3. "positive cost benefit" - This is the claim that first convinced me that cameras are based on fraudulent claims. The calculations use Value of Preventing a Fatality (VPF) but treats them as if they are costs and “return on investment”. The cost to the county/country of a fatality is not around £1.5M and to claim that one life saved represents a return on investment of £1.5M is patently a lie. The real costs of a fatality (from Highways Economic Note 1, Table 3) are typically £5000 - £20000 (costs associated primarily with emergency services and hospital). The only way to get return on investment in cash terms is through fining drivers, many of whom are driving around the 85th percentile speed (and therefore probably quite safe), but the revenue from fines is never mentioned in the return-on-investment discussions, hence my belief that fraud is being perpetrated in the name of road safety. I am currently in correspondence with the National Audit Office on this matter.
4. "public support" - based on loaded/biased survey questions. Public support has zero value in a safety management system. What matters are the results in terms of fatalities, casualties and collisions across the whole region, not just at a few specially selected sites. But there was no holistic measure of road safety across the region in the PA Consulting report; just measurements at specific sites and no control experiment to see if the effects "at camera sites" would be the same if all of the signage and engineering changes were made but without adding a camera.
None of these four measures addresses casualties/collisions holistically, across the whole region. This Evaluation Report provides no evidence of road safety effectiveness of speed cameras.
What causes accidents?
It is common to read reports about a “speeding driver” causing death, injury or other damage. In virtually all cases, it becomes clear that the root cause of the crash was drink, drugs, police chase, “joy rider” in a stolen vehicle, etc. It is not possible for an accident to be caused by someone driving faster than a speed posted on a sign. Of course higher speed will make the severity of any collision worse, but it will not be the cause the collision (except possibly in extreme circumstances in which case there will usually be another root cause). Speed cameras address a symptom of bad driving (exceeding the speed limit) but collisions are prevented by addressing the root causes of bad driving, and that can be done only through driver education and increasing police patrols
Apart from the factors such as drink, drugs, crime, etc., most collisions are caused by poor observation, poor concentration, lack of signalling, misjudgement, lack of anticipation, reduce safety margin, tiredness, and so on – rarely, if ever, simply by exceeding the speed limit.
Why a camera cannot prevent an accident/collision/casualty
As already mentioned, many reports show that accidents/collisions/casualties fall at camera sites but there is NO EVIDENCE that any of this is due to the camera. To claim safety benefit, there must be credible causal link between fall in incidents and the role played by the camera. (to illustrate this, a speed camera installed on the runway at Charles De Gaulle airport following the Concorde crash could not claim credit for no crashes during take-off since July 2000 – yet this is the sort of illogical claim routinely made for speed cameras by Partnerships and others who advocate their use).
I explain below why reductions in accidents and casualties CANNOT be due to a camera (or at least the likelihood is diminishingly small). In order to understand this, we need to look at the “anatomy” of an crash (and I believe virtually all crashes can be characterised in these terms – I’m open to offers for a real or imaginary incident which does not).
The first "ingredient" is a hazardous condition - this could be a tired driver, a driver using a mobile phone, an overtaking manoeuvre (being on the wrong side of the road is always potentially hazardous), a bald tyre, and so on. These are, if you like, "accidents waiting to happen".
But in order for these hazards to develop into a crash we require an initiating (or triggering) event such as a misjudgement, a manoeuvre without looking or signalling, a road-user failing to respond to a traffic signal or, in the case of the bald tyre, sudden braking or steering on a slippery surface.
Once the initiating event has combined with the hazardous condition an accident sequence has started and it will become a crash unless something can stop it or, technically, mitigate it. In most cases this boils down to reactions of the drivers involved and can be aided by active car safety measures such as anti-lock brakes. Ultimately, if a collision happens, only "last-ditch" safety features such as airbags, crumple zones and seat-belts or road engineering such as crash-barriers can reduce the severity of the collision.
So, in order for a camera to prevent a collision it has to either remove the hazardous condition or the initiating event, or mitigate the accident sequence once it has been triggered. I have asked many experts in this field to describe a credible scenario where a camera can do this and they have failed. I have asked for examples of actual accidents where it could be said "if a camera had been present then that would have been prevented; I have had no offers. I have asked for imaginary scenarios where the camera prevents a collision in the way I have described above; again, no credible offers.
Most road safety devices have a clear link to preventing collisions or preventing injury - seat-belts, traction control, anti-lock brakes, rear-fog lights, solid white lines, crash barriers, for example, all can easily be explained and many people will testify that their lives have been saved, or a crash has been prevented, by them. As far as I can see, such a linkage does not exist for cameras.
Cameras are always installed where there has been an unusually high spate of incidents and where there is a “speeding problem”. Statistically, the incidents in the following years will nearly always be lower at that camera site. There seems to be an acceptance among all parties that RTTM is responsible for most of the fall in the statistics at a camera site, but it is often asserted that the camera "gets the credit" for the rest. That is a leap of faith for which I see no evidence. The test is very simple – take that “high spate of incidents” and explain how any of them could have been prevented – if that is not possible, then, coupled with my explanation of the anatomy of a crash above, there is no logical reason to suppose that a speed camera of any type could ever prevent a crash or casualty. This is the heart of my claim that there is no safety benefit to be obtained from speed cameras.
Without the logical, credible link between the camera and a road safety benefit (in terms of a collision prevented), the statistical claims for reductions in crashes at camera sites have little or no credibility - they must be due to statistics or other factors (recognised or not). This applies to all types of speed camera – fixed, mobile or average speed.
Paradoxically, there is more evidence of cameras contributing to crashes than there is that they prevent crashes…..
Examples of cameras contributing to deaths
Fatalities across the Northern Region of Scotland have increased 30% annually for the two years after speed cameras were introduced (2004 = 20, 2005 = 26, 2006 = 34) – and the Partnership continued to issue press releases boasting of reductions at camera sites.
At the inquest into the death of Mrs Myra Nevett in 2004, the Coroner considered that a speed camera contributed to the tragedy. Quoting from the BBC website…
John Pollard, the Stockport Coroner, partly blamed the death of Myra Nevett, 69, in a road traffic accident in Disley, Greater Manchester, last year on the presence of a camera. The coroner said roadside yellow cameras can distract drivers “even momentarily” who glance upwards and at their speed rather than the road.
Arthur Hadfield, the motorist involved in the accident, has been charged with driving without due care and attention and will appear before Stockport magistrates next year.
The inquest was told that Mrs Nevett, a retired school bursar, was fatally injured on December 16 as she crossed the A6 on her way home. She died in Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport.
Mr Pollard told the hearing that the speed camera could have caught the attention of the driver at just the wrong moment.
His view was endorsed by PC Michael Jeffrey, the accident investigator at the scene. He said: “They do tend to divert drivers’ attention away from other areas and they concentrate solely on their speed.”
Then there is this report from Feb 2009:
A DRIVER may have been killed because he braked suddenly after spotting a speed camera.
Police say Graham Davies, 45, is unlikely to have even been speeding when he lost control of his car.
The businessman died instantly when his Skoda Fabia hit a lamp-post near an accident blackspot on the A9. Traffic policeman George Fergus claimed braking was a natural reaction for any driver unaware of their exact speed.
He told an inquiry: "Witnesses said that, for no apparent reason, the victim's vehicle braked heavily, there was a lot of smoke and the car veered left and collided with the lamp-post."
Graham, of Stockton-on-Tees, crashed near Auchterarder, Perthshire.
Fergus added: "There is no reason to believe Mr Davies was speeding.
"However, we find many drivers - when approaching a camera - see the camera or road markings and it is a natural reaction to brake hard then check their speed and accelerate again.
"I believe that is what has happened here.
"He has braked hard then lost control."
Perth sheriff Michael Fletcher will issue a fatal accident inquiry report on the tragedy last May.
The death of Graham Davies is not an isolated incident. It may be that fatalities are comparatively rare, but the familiar sights of brake-lights and skid marks near speed cameras suggests that there are plenty of less serious incidents and near-misses. It is inconceivable that others have not been injured by collisions triggered by speed cameras. The HA report confirmed that such behaviours are widespread.
Finally, for now, I quote Paul Clark’s recent speech at the PACTS conference:
“And we remain committed to using and speed cameras. Cameras are not cash driven. They are not a tax. They have one purpose and one purpose only - and that is to reduce speeding where there is a history of accidents or where there is community concern about speeding.
As far as I’m concerned, the best camera is one that doesn't issue a single ticket as it means people are driving safely and within the speed limit. Drivers who abide by the speed limit, and therefore don’t put other road users at risk, have nothing to fear from cameras. Only those irresponsible enough to break the law pay penalties, just as other lawbreakers do.
And evaluations from around the world have shown that cameras bring huge road safety benefits. They reduce vehicle speeds, they reduce accidents, they reduce deaths and they reduce serious injuries.
Our own National Safety Camera Programme underwent an independent four-year evaluation, the report being published in 2005. It found a 42% reduction in people killed or seriously injured at camera sites across the 38 partnership areas. In short, they save lives.
And as you know, we’re also using average speed cameras to slow down traffic on key sections of our road network – either where there is a history of collisions along a stretch of road or in motorway road works. Early evidence suggests they can deliver a 50% reduction in deaths and serious injuries.”
Rhetoric, and misleading cherry-picked statistics and sound-bites.
· No mention of the numerous negative effects on driver behaviour introduced by camera enforcement.
· No mention of deaths attributable to speed cameras.
· “Early evidence suggests they [TOD cameras] can deliver a 50% reduction in deaths and serious injuries.”?? No mention here of the statistical trends (eg regression to the mean) caused by selection effects – merely the suggestion that the speed cameras get all of the credit for any reductions. Utter nonsense.
· “evaluations from around the world have shown that cameras bring huge road safety benefits” No such evaluations exist, nor could they. The negative effects of speed cameras, as expressed in the Highways Agency report easily outweigh the supposed benefits.
Summary
I have used a system safety approach to explain in considerable detail why it is virtually impossible for a speed camera (of any type) to prevent a collision/casualty. I am open to any challenge on that, explaining where my approach is flawed and providing a credible counter example.
An official report from the Highways Agency recognises that speed cameras of all types cause hazardous driving behaviour. Their only proposed “solution” is to educate drivers to reduce the associated risk. This is unacceptable and positively dangerous thinking as it will never deliver benefits equal to the negative effects.
Drivers need to be educated, but not in how to negotiate the hazards introduced by “safety cameras” (sic) but in how to deal with the real hazards on the road, caused by road layout (junctions, white lines, bends, hills, traffic lights, etc), conditions (day/night, sun, rain, ice, fog, etc) and other road users.
The DfT also needs to be educated in what causes collisions and how they can be prevented. Their current obsession with speed management is fundamentally flawed.
You have a duty of care to minimise the risk to the public caused by measures taken to improve road safety. You are failing in that duty every day that a speed camera remains on a UK road.
As always, I have extensive further material to support every statement and claim that I have made.