Safe Speed Forums

There's an article in the MoS today about how a Liverpool University investigation (by "Dr. Linda Mountain") into accident rates at camera locations has shown that they don't cut accidents.

I'll scan it later, but it mentions RTTM (but not using those words), but it shows that they do cut minor accident rates byt 22%.

Gareth

Here's the article:

Brilliant stuff and in the newspaper that these days the Labour (and Conservative) politicians read.

Paul it must reduce the clock time?

Except that they give the closing paragraph to the DoT spokesperson who trots out the same old bullsh*t...

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Imtersting, since most cameras are where speed limits are 30 or above.....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Is it, itn's is?

Cheers
Peter

We've long been aware of this research. See:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123

Nevertheless, Safe Speed issued the following PR at 1:08 this morning (Monday).

PR196: Liverpool research says speed cameras don't save lives

NEWS: For immediate release

Soon-to-be-published research led by Dr Linda Mountain at Liverpool University
reveals no significant benefit from speed cameras in terms of deaths or
serious injuries even at speed camera sites.

The difference between the Liverpool findings and the Department for Transport
(DfT) claims can be explained directly by the 'regression to the mean' (RTTM) error.
This error is incorporated in the DfT claims and those published by camera
partnerships. The DfT is aware of the problem and have recently invited
tenders for a new research project to investigate RTTM and speed camera side
effects.

This is EXACTLY as the Safe Speed campaign has been warning for years.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "It's a great relief to see the truth about speed
camera policy failure gradually coming out. Britain's motorists have been
fined, lied to and distracted for far too long. Speed cameras are a £700
million policy failure. Far from saving lives they have displaced genuine life
saving road safety policies resulting in considerable loss of life."

When speed cameras are put in the broader context, Safe Speed finds:

* No benefit at speed camera sites
* Drivers spend too much time speedo watching
* The Police/public relationship is badly affected
* False road safety message tend to make drivers believe that if their speed
is legal is will be safe. Nothing could be further from the truth.
* Cameras have been used to replace valuable Police patrols
* Drivers are in fear of their driving licences and have become less effective
at avoiding crashes.
* Most fines are issued to safe drivers travelling at safe and appropriate
speeds.
* Despite 12 million fines issued drivers' speeding behaviour remains more or
less unchanged.

The net effect of speed cameras on road safety has been absolutely awful.

Safe Speed calls for the immediate scrapping of all speed cameras because the
side effects are far greater than the dubious benefits.

Paul concludes: "You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour."

<ends>


Notes for editors:
==================

Presentation of findings by Dr Linda Mountain at the Royal Statistical Society
last November:
http://www.rss.org.uk/rssadmin/uploads/ ... 0nov04.pdf

Safe Speed on regression to the mean:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr126.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr127.html

Recent Safe Speed PR on new DfT Research:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/41

See also: The Mail on Sunday, 22nd May 2005, Page 40: "The proof that speed
cameras don't save lives" by Andrew Baxter and Martin Delgrado. Scan at:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2678
=============================================

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

Yes, the last paragraph is in true DfT style: "Hands over the ears - la la la la la, we are not listening........."

Except that the spokesperson's comment is a shot straight in the foot as he has used the good old 'reduction at camera sites' stats that the research is attacking as evidence that cameras actually work.

Its like a bad sales pitch....a very limited vocabulary and dubious evidence to back it up.....it is rare for pro-camera supporters to fully engage in a discussion. The just fall back to the set script.

I think that this is going to be an interesting year though....Many local authorities say fatalities climb last year (inspite if the seduction in motorcycle deaths, ususaly the scape goat) and this year is looking the same or worse.....Its time to realy pile on the pressure.

It must be getting harder to say "we are still on course to meet the 2010 target reduction" when things have taken a turn for the worse.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Yes.. But.. "He who laughs last etc..". The last word is the one that tends to stick in the non-involved reader's mind. If the story had been arranged so that it started with the DoT drone's statements which were then demolished by Dr Mountain's findings it would, in my opinion, have had far more impact on the "average" reader.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

gattril, I would like to put up that picture on a dutch version of safespeed.

_________________
www.beterveilig.nl

Sure, no problem. Save it off and host it yourself or load it directly from that link (there is practically unlimited bandwidth on that server).

Gareth

Does this challenge the use of the word 'Safety' the scameraships started by saying this is a collective term for speed and red light cameras. they later switched to the claim that there was proof that they improved road safety.

with regard to humps, I'd like to see if there were reductions in traffic volumes as I've heard that humping rat runs can reduce traffic by 60%. Which means accidents increase on PVKM basis post treatment.

Well Humps have to be the next thing to get off our roads, them and their right angled equivalents chicanes - the only positive about them is that they divert traffic away from the alleged "rat runs", which has to be interpreted as "they increase congestion". Most of these "rat runs" that I have seen are perfectly good through routes.

I think that the way to argue against these is to bring in all deaths as a consequence of speed bumps, such as heart attacks where ambulance arrived 1 min too late, fire victims because fire engine was too late, etc.

Interesting to see that the Swindon and Wiltshire scamerati can distort this report to suit their own spin...
http://www.safetycameraswiltshire.co.uk ... ?newsid=85

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

Does this explanation for the 85th percentile actually make sense to anybody? It seems writing sentences in English is a little too much for some scamerati

Chris

Yes, it does make sense. They mean that the 85th percentile speed at the site reduced by 5.9% after 'treatment' - as it would (for example) if the 'before' 85th percentile speed was 100mph and the 'after' 85th percentile speed was 94.1mph.

However, that tells us little or nothing about the safety effect of the change, and especially so when one considers any effects on the wider road network.

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

I actually think Chris has a point. If the Scamerati had said
Paul's interpretation is correct - including the appended words of wisdom regarding the caution with which the statement must be taken.

However, they actually say which, like Chris, I contend is meaningless.

Quite right. But we need to expend our energies attacking the real problems, not trying to force the scamerati into taking English lessons!

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