Safe Speed Forums

The Road Safety Knowledge Centre was officially launched in London on 15 September.

The DfT has admitted that figures used in a THINK! anti-speed campaign overestimated the chances of a pedestrian being killed when hit by a car at moderate speeds, according to a report in the Telegraph.

Drivers negotiating a tricky bend in Yorkshire claim they are being dangerously distracted by a road safety poster urging them to keep their eyes on the road.

And a sticker applied to the surface of a road that gives the impression a child is standing in the middle of the street is being used in Canada to highlight the danger posed by traffic around schools.

Read about these - and all the other important road safety issues of the moment - at:
<http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk>
Good reading, Nick Rawlings Road Safety GB newsfeed editor

Speed camera debate rekindled as Government re-examines casualty figures
By David Millward, Transport Editor
Published: 7:00AM BST 10 Aug 2010
A study commissioned by the Department for Transport has uncovered a “lack of clarity” over the way in which the figures are compiled.

Its findings rekindled the debate over speed cameras, with their number being scaled back by the Coalition, despite the misgivings of some senior police officers.
In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, Julie Spence, the outgoing chief constable of Cambridgeshire, attacked the “hypocrisy” of speeding middle class motorists.
Speed cameras were a cornerstone of Labour’s road safety strategy, which set a target of a 60 per cent cut in the number of people killed and seriously on the country’s roads by 2010 compared to the late 1990s.
Supporters of the speed camera programme say the target was met with not only a substantial fall in the number of deaths, but also serious injuries – as recorded by the police who attended accidents.
But the latest DfT study uncovered serious flaws in the way in which officers compiled the statistics,

The research showed there were “discrepancies” between the way injuries were classified by police and those – such as paramedics – with medical training.
“It should be recognised that no all injuries, even severe ones, come to the attention of the police," the report says.
“Some never do and some are reported subsequently, which means no police officer ever attended the scene.”
A number of changes are envisaged, including issuing police officers with hand-held devices to record injuries at the site of the crash.
It is also recommended that officers consult paramedics at the time to assess the severity of the injuries sustained.

The findings were seized upon by Claire Armstrong of the anti-camera group, Safe Speed.
“We are concerned that the figures were being used to justify the speed camera programme.
Considering that hospital figures vary from police figures, we know that all the accidents are not reported.
“Therefore the statistics are not telling the whole story. The figures for the number of people being seriously injured are completely unreliable because the Department for Transport has no idea of the true picture.
“They are not fit for purpose, the whole system needs a complete overhaul so the right policies are put in place.”

The road safety group, Brake, insisted that cameras were justified, but welcomed moves to improve the accuracy of accident figures.
“We would like a much more comprehensive system for recording the number of people seriously injured on our roads," said a spokesman.
“At the moment there are a few difficulties with the police making a decision on whether somebody is seriously injured.
“Even if somebody walks away from crash they may have to be admitted into hospital a few days later.
“Nevertheless there is no debate about the number of people killed. The figures show that the camera programme has saved countless lives in recent years.”

A DfT spokesperson said: “The police data we use remain the most detailed and complete source of data on road casualties covering the whole of Great Britain.
“However, the changes we have identified in the review will continue to improve the quality and range of data available on road casualties.”

Two thirds road injuries not recorded, Government admits
By David Millward, Transport Editor
Published: 4:26PM BST 24 Sep 2009
Two thirds of people injured in road accidents have not been recorded by the Department for Transport, the Government has admitted.
Government admits underestimating casualties.(photo)

Unveiling the figures for casualties on Britain's roads last year, the DfT has conceded that figures provided by the police have dramatically underestimated how many people are being hurt as a result of traffic accidents.
According to the latest statistics the police recorded 230,000 injuries on Britain's roads last year.
But now the DfT believes the real figure is somewhere between 680,000 and 920,000, with the Department estimating that the most accurate figure is around 800,000.
The higher figure has been calculated by taking into account information from a number of other sources, including figures provided by hospital accident and emergency departments.

Up until now the Government has justified its safety strategy – which includes the use of an extensive network of speed cameras – on the reported drop in the number of people killed and seriously injured in accidents.
It has claimed that it has now met its target of reducing this figure to 60 per cent of the annual average between 1994-8.
According to its latest figures, 2,538 people were killed in 2008, and 26,034 were reported to the police as having sustained serious injuries, a six per cent reduction on 2007.
However this assertion has been questioned with hospitals claiming to have dealt with around 40,000 serious injuries, a reduction of just over two per cent.
The pattern reflects the trend of recent years. Police figures – known as Stats 19, based on the form filled out by officer on the scene – have fallen sharply.
But the same is not true for hospital figures which for much of the decade have risen, only showing a slight decline in the past two years.
"Injuries are hard to define especially for a policeman at the roadside," said Andrew Howard, the AA's head of road safety. "At the same time hospitals have changed how they produce their data too, with more injuries being recorded.
"Over time the Department's figures have been as consistent as reasonably possible."
But critics of the Government's speed camera programme said that the figures cast serious doubt on the strategy.
"Although were are encouraged to see the deaths falling a little bit overall. With a serious recession in progress we would have hoped to have seen the figures drop more dramatically.
"However the fact the fact that the Government is admitting casualty figures are higher justifies what we have been predicting for some time," said Claire Armstrong, co-founder of the anti camera group, Safe Speed.
"The justification for the camera programme has depended on the fall in casualties. But now it appears that the police statistics, upon which the Government relied, can be called into question.
"Our initial reaction is one of concern that the Government is continuing to follow a strategy which, on these findings, has shown little evidence of having been effective."
The Tories, meanwhile, said the figures showed that Britain was lagging behind other countries when it came to improving road safety.
‘‘With the UK’s rate of improvement on road safety now only 16th in the world, behind countries like Germany, Spain, and Greece, today's figures show that Labour needs to rethink their “one club golfer" approach to road safety and speed cameras," said Theresa Villiers, the party's transport spokesman.
“The time has come to ask whether Labour's decision to give such a dominant role to fixed speed cameras is the best way to make our roads safer.”

Meanwhile the willingness of the DfT to accept that its past figures could have been flawed was welcomed by Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.
“It is also encouraging to note the DfT analysis of sources of data other than STATS19 in terms of the number of road crashes," he said. "“All sources of data have their strengths and weaknesses.
"Under-recording or mis-definition of serious and slight injuries has been common knowledge for many years. We need to get a better understanding of the scale of under-reporting and this article helps us to begin to do so."
The DfT defended its road safety strategy. “Britain has the joint safest roads in the world alongside Sweden and road safety has improved significantly in recent years – 1,000 fewer people now die on the roads in a year than in the mid-1990s and the 14% fall in road deaths last year was the largest percentage fall in the post-war period.
“We have always been clear that the police statistics do not provide a complete count of non-fatal road casualties but they remain the most detailed and complete source of data, providing reliable information to monitor progress and target further road safety improvements.
“We continue to work to reduce road casualties through a range of initiatives, including our award-winning THINK! campaigns, measures to create safer vehicles and tougher laws and direct police enforcement to tackle dangerous drivers.”

This means that the focus of previous efforts towards road safety really were misguided. The irrelevant data resulted with policies that, in reality, yielded a smaller return than expected. This diverted resource away from other initiatives that would have been comparatively more successful.

In light of this, we must correct our strategy and not continue in a direction we know is misguided.

From that point of view, I imagine SOME good must have come from policies resulting in the reduction in traffic speed in densely poulated areas. Do we have any firm evidence that bigger reductions could have been made by other policies?