Safe Speed Forums

A picture of the truth
4 Jun: Sir, - As one of the campaigners for speed cameras in Wetley Rocks and as a member of Transport 2000, I cannot allow the misleading letter from Mr Richards (June 1) to go uncorrected. Firstly, the report from Liverpool University does not find that speed cameras are ineffective in reducing casualties, only that they are less effective than speed humps, but the authors also acknowledge that speed cameras can be used in places where humps are not suitable. Secondly, the evidence from Staffordshire is not that speed cameras are ineffective but that they work. Staffordshire has more speed cameras than other counties and lower accident rates. The main road in Wetley Rocks is now protected by speed cameras at both ends of the village. The speed of vehicles in between is noticeably slower than it was before. Developing technology will allow measurement of the speed of a vehicle between cameras, eliminating the tendency of irresponsible drivers to speed up as soon as they pass the camera. Speed cameras are free, paid for by fines, so they do not use up resources that can be used for other road safety measures. The Staffordshire Road Safety Partnership also provides driver education for drivers caught just over the speed limit as an alternative to fines and penalty points. It is true that the safe speed may be below the speed limit in poor conditions, but it seems to be a widely held myth that the driver is best qualified to judge the safe speed even when it is over the set limit. Maybe this explains the odd fact that the majority of speeding accidents are caused by experienced mature drivers on familiar roads.

Cameras Don't Stop fatalities.

12:00 - 01 June 2005
Sir, - If MP David Kidney thinks speed cameras reduce deaths and serious injuries even at camera sites then he is delusional. The apparent reductions are explained by a statistical effect called regression to the mean. The University of Liverpool has just published a study showing speed camera benefits are largely down to this rather than any actual real world benefit. If you site cameras where there have been multiple fatalities the likelihood is that the number of accidents will drop in subsequent years even with no camera and no other measures. Apparent benefits also do little to take account of road engineering measures and variations in traffic levels. There are 6,000 cameras and still over 3,500 deaths per year. If only half the cameras managed to save one life each then there would be 500 deaths a year. Accident black spots only account for roughly 15 per cent of all accidents. As only around three per cent of all accidents are caused by speed in the excess of the prevailing limit (according to Avon & Somerset and Durham police statistics) you can see what a miniscule effect the cameras would have even if they did work. The fatalities due to excessive speed also include accidents involving joy riders, criminals escaping from the police and drugged/drunk drivers. So few of the drivers causing these accidents are your average driver that drifts over the limit and gets snapped. The drawbacks of cameras are far greater and they have been used as a substitute for real traffic police. Bearing in mind deaths on Staffordshire' s roads have been increasing even though the area is littered with speed cameras also suggests that they do not work. The Safety Camera Partnership should be sacked as they are doing nothing for road safety. Imagine the benefit that could be gained if all the money wasted on these stupid distractions was ploughed into driver education. It is about time the real causes of accidents and fatalities are dealt with: drunk and drugged driving, illegal driving and tired drivers. The Camera Partnerships are further muddying the issue by failing to distinguish between inappropriate speed (speed in excess of the safe speed for the conditions) and excessive speed (speed in excess of the limit). Their road safety message is now down to the simplistic "drive within the limit and you' ll be ok". The lowering of speed limits is also reducing people's belief that those that set them have a clue about what they are doing. The highway code also makes the matter worse by using braking statistics from a car of the 1960s. No wonder the youth of today drive around at the limit in the narrowest of roads and during the busiest of times. I do not expect the Camera Partnership to do a damn thing about it as any road safety measures that will actually reduce deaths don' t bring in money.

7 Jun: Sir, - The debate on safety cameras ended a couple of years ago with the ayes in favour. Organisations such as Safe Speed and the ABD (the vocal minority), have had all of their arguments against safety cameras refuted - both by the authorities and independently. It's no surprise then, that the authorities refuse to enter into any further dialogue with them. After all, if these anti-safety camera organisations were to accept published safety camera analysis, they would go out of business overnight. Your leader column questions the placement of safety cameras, and calls to have them property audited. The simple fact of the matter is that they have been transparently audited, but there are those who still refuse to accept the findings. Shame. The Sentinel recognises that there is a reckless minority of road users - this is very true. They present a risk to all of us that is five times greater than the average motorist and over 10 times that of the advanced driver. However, this group represents only five per cent of the motoring population, so they are effectively responsible for 25 per cent of all road deaths. The safest drivers on the road are the advanced drivers, who represent only about one per cent of the motoring population. So who is responsible for the remaining 74.5 per cent of deaths on the road? The only group left is the average motorist. So, when it comes to road safety, the average motorist always has been a legitimate safety camera target. My own research has studied both sides of the debate and concluded that safety cameras prevent in the region of 100 deaths and 1,000 serious injuries per year and have saved the economy around £1.2 million per death and £400,000 per serious injury. They reduce collisions within their placed areas, leaving the motorist to continue driving badly in others, resulting in we, the motorists, continually creating the need for ever more