Safe Speed Forums

I emailed the partnership and received this response.

To be fair, they didn't just roll out the same tired old lines.

Regards,
Martin


Thank you for your E-mail to Cambridgeshire Constabulary received on 01/06/2005, ID number AE2A The following text is the response to this e-mail.

Dear Mr Paton

Thank you for your email through our website.
In response to the points you raise:

When asked about the current trend of 'panic' braking and speedo watching around camera sites

1. Speedometer watching and panic braking only applies to people who are braking the law by exceeding their legal speed limit. Safe legal drivers would not need to "panic brake" as they would already be driving within the speed limit. Drivers should check their speedometer as often as they check their mirrors. The notion that you need to constantly drive round with your eyes on the speedometer is absurd - you can tell from experience and one glance at the speedometer what speed you are travelling at and know if you have sped up/slowed down from that speed. In addition, most peoples' field of vision enables them to see the speedometer needle out of the corner of their eye whilst at the same time concentrating on the road ahead.

When questioning the relevance of "Hit someone at 40 and they have an 80% chance of dying" statistic

2. What proof do you have that "most fatal RTAs occur at speeds well under the speed limit"? At locations where there is a collision problem but no problem with speed we would not install a safety camera as other engineering solutions would be more appropriate. There is absolutely no point erecting a safety camera if vehicles are already travelling at speeds below the legal limit as cameras are there to ensure compliance with the limit - something which in this case would already be happening. At every location considered as a potential safety camera site, a road safety engineer carries out a survey to confirm that no other cost-effective engineering solution can be implemented.

Questioning the 1/3rd lie and contributory factors

3. The DfT statistic you quote relates to the main cause of collisions.
Speed is a factor in every single collision that occurs - two parked vehicles do not collide with each other if they are not moving. Simple physics also proves that speed has an influence on the impact of a collision and hence the subsequent injuries that are sustained by people involved in the collision. Also, for example if a collision is caused by "inattention" such as a driver fiddling with the radio then the speed that he/she is travelling at would have a bearing on whether he/she could stop the vehicle in time. Reaction times and stopping distances are lower at slower speeds - hence tailgating is a bigger problem the faster you are travelling. It must also be noted that causes of collisions reported by officers at the scene of a crash can be very subjective and "box-ticking"
can mean limited recording of the exact circumstances of a collision as each one is completely different.

Questioning the focus on speed kills policy

4. We acknowledge that speed is not the only cause of road traffic collisions. The Safety Camera Programme is just one part of an overall road safety strategy to bring down the level of death and injury on our roads.
The introduction of Safety Cameras has not had an effect on police officer numbers and the scheme is designed to work alongside other roads policing not instead of it. Billions of pounds are spent in the UK each year on road safety engineering schemes, road safety education and the policing of the roads to tackle issues such as drink-driving and drivers who are unlicensed, uninsured or driving unroadworthy vehicles or vehicles without tax. The money spent on the Safety Camera Programme (none of which comes from taxpayers - only from those who choose to break the law by exceeding their legal speed limit) is a very small amount in comparison. Safety Cameras are working - at the majority of sites where cameras are used the level of death and injury has fallen quite considerably; thousands of people every year are asking for cameras in their communities to do something about speeding vehicles; there is widespread public support for cameras - generally only those who want to be allowed to break the law have a problem with cameras.

Questioning lack of RTTM compensation in camera benefit reports

5. A study into the effects of cameras in Cambridgeshire - including considerations for regression to the mean - showed that collision numbers were reduced by up to 45%. See this link for the full report - http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/StaffPages/S ... c_2004.pdf


Asking how they generate the "The vast majority of people are favouring speed cameras" statistic

6. Your point does not apply to the Cambridgeshire Partnership - we publish the source of our surveys and sample sizes. Our most recent surveys conducted were in Cambridgeshire in Nov-Dec 2004 by BMG Research (1318
respondents) and in Peterborough in July-Aug 2004 by MORI (553 respondents).

Asking about inappropriate speed limits

7. The Safety Camera Partnership does not set speed limits. This is undertaken by the highway authority for the road in consultation with a number of agencies. The speed limits around Safety Cameras in Cambridgeshire are all well-signed in advance (in accordance with the DfT Safety Camera Programme Guidelines) so motorists should be well aware of what the limit is and slow down accordingly.

Questionning the game they have on their website - which suggests installing a safety camera when children are playing chicken with traffic.

8. The Safety Camera Interactive game on our website was introduced as a way of promoting our website and increasing the number of visitors. This has certainly worked and we currently have an average of around 500 hits every day. It should be noted that the computer game is fictional and computer-generated - as such it does not reflect real life and never suggests that this is the case.

Thanks for taking the time to email us. Your comments are noted.

Regards,
S Clarkson
Cambridgeshire Safety Camera Partnership

Should you have any further queries or follow up comments, please contact us through the Cambridgeshire Constabulary website at www.cambs.police.uk N.B. YOU CAN NOT USE THE REPLY BUTTON



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet e-mail is not to be treated as a secure means of communication Cambridgeshire Constabulary monitors all internet e-mail activity and content.
This communication is confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. Please notify the sender if you have received this in error.
Unauthorised use or disclosure of the contents may be unlawful.
Opinions expressed in this document may not be official policy.
Thank you for your cooperation. (c) Cambridgeshire Constabulary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure I understand that one. I thought reaction times had something to do with alertness, which has been suggested to increase with speed (up to a point).

Umm, hope you complied with conditions laid down in the footnote before you posted this mate.

I think it's just a bog standard adendum more to make sure the correct person has received the letter than to stop disclosure.

You have to remember that we're dealing with people who never question the 'official' line, even if it's obviously nonsense.

Cheers
Peter

Pure fantasy, for the following reasons:

1) It's not what people do, and we have to be conscerned with what people do do, not what we'd like them to do.

2) It's isn't about knowing the speed limit. It's about being absolutely 100% certain that you know the speed limit in that couple of seconds before the camera. People can't afford to risk setting off a camera because of the risk to mobility.

3) How can you know your speed to the precision required by speed cameras UNLESS you watch the speedo?



Waaaa! Mirror checks should be carried out every 4 to 7 seconds according to many recommendations. We know from our own testing that speedo checks take about a second. So this nitwit is suggesting that we give up (up to) 25% of our attention to the speedometer. What a great idea! Shall we put him in charge of road safety? Even 1 second in 7 represents about 14% of our attention.

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

Assuming the same amount of time for your mirror checks this means ~50% of the time is left for looking ahead!

But it has had an effect on TRAFFIC police numbers..

I'm not a statistician. Has anyone got any criticisms of the methodology devised by Hess to remove RTTM effects?

...OR people who have even a nagging doubt that they just might be, even if they are not. Especially if they see the camera late or if the speed limit is not clearly signed.

I'm afraid they did mate, they've simply dressed it up a bit. They realise that people are starting to question the effectiveness with a bit of a knowledge base, and they have had to smarten up their answers. It is largely smokescreen however.




When asked about the current trend of 'panic' braking and speedo watching around camera sites


No!

Speedo watching and panic braking are completely separate items.
Panic braking occurs when you know you are over the limit and it's a mad effort to reduce to the limit or below. To use an example.
You're travelling at 85, lane two on a free flowing motorway watching an HGV in lane one close on a slower moving HGV. You check your mirror and assess that the approach of a higher speed vehicle should not hinder your move into lane three to allow the HGV to pass. You make this manoeuvre satisfactorily realising that by the time you have passed the HGV, the faster moving vehicle, having realised that you are on the ball, has pinched a little of the 2 second gap, but has timed his approach so that he will eventually pass you with little loss of momentum.
You then check the horizon view, and 1000 metres ahead on a distant overbridge you see the distinctive colours of the camera van. "Shit! I don't want points on my licence." You know that you have someone close behind you, but you are already in the camera zone. You have to get the speed off - "Should I simply engine brake? Might work, but what will happen behind me. Perhaps I should show my brake lights?... Yes, I'll have to now anyway, no choice." You brake and pull in close in front of the HGV thinking that you could perhaps indicate to the faster moving car that there is a camera up ahead. Your gesticulations to him as he passes are mistaken for aggression and he gives you a finger for your driving which initially seemed readable but fell apart at the end. He then takes a late horizon check, realises what the problem is, and anchors up himself. You both have a fortnight, or perhaps much longer to wait to see if your driving has been penalised.

This is a natural instinctive avoidance reaction and it invades normal safe driving behaviour.

We would attend and remove hazards from the road which were causing such instinctive unnatural behaviour.



Again mixing two completely separate concepts. Under normal circumstances drivers will check their rear view mirror when appropriate or convenient. It adds to their overall safety. People check their speedo simply to see how their speed relates to the legal limit. It can be done when appropriate and convenient, and will be a general glance to assess the 'ball park' figure.

If you or I approach a camera van or fixed camera, even if we are within the speed limit, you will take two or three instinctive glances towards your speedo to ascertain your speed. These glances will be neither appropriate or convenient in a purely road safety sense - as the positioning of a camera at that location would suggest heightened risk. The glances will be extended to provide you with some comfort that your speed is below the limit. This has to involve some hazard awareness compromise.

When questioning the relevance of "Hit someone at 40 and they have an 80% chance of dying" statistic



I agree with the respondent that most fatal accidents involve a speed in excess of the posted limit. But it is not as simple as that. The speed is not the 'causer', it is an aggravator of the consequences, and usually because the manner or type of driving was unacceptable or driver awareness was not adequate to mitigate the free travelling speed.



Again we have a completely false association between collisions occuring and speed causing them. Many cameras are sited at area which have a recent collision history, and have an 85th percentile speed above the legal limit, but closer analysis of the stats would suggest that the causal correlation between collision and speed is indistinct to the point of being wrong.

Questioning the 1/3rd lie and contributory factors



Again the convenient confusion of 'factor' and 'cause'. Years of experience tells us that it is those who are unable to avoid the accident by use of concentration and anticipation and adequately reduce their free driving speed, who are our risk drivers. This is not a 'speed' thing. It is a 'concentration' thing. Current enforcement strategy is playing with reasonable drivers' abilities to drive properly and safely by adding unreasonable restraints.
Analyse the collisions at camera sites and ask the questions "Were these collisions caused by speed or was it simply a factor? Was there a dominant causal factor?" 99 times out of 100 you'll find that there was a dominant causal factor which had nothing to do with speed.



Theory again trying to masquerade as reality. Think about it. You are much more likely to do some radio fiddling at lower speeds where you feel you have acres of time and space to make your adjustments. It is a misappropriation of concentration which is far more likely at lower concentration speeds.



Tailgating has much more to do with time to react than stopping distances, and I have long since conceded that most higher speed tailgating, as given in my example at the start of this post, is part of our safe driving culture (anticipation and planning).



Yes, which begs the question of the effectiveness of a largely one dimensional attack on collisions which is not addressing the primary causal factors. Until we reduce primary causal factors, we will never reduce fatalities.

Questioning the focus on speed kills policy



It is the main enforcement tool, and it is completely missing the mark as far as fatality reduction is concerned.



We in Cumbria are fighting to retain our traffic numbers. Elsewhere trafpol numbers have diminished or disappeared altogether. We have additional responsibilities (ARV etc) which have allowed the retention of numbers, but for this reason many trafpol may have less of a traffic 'head' than was previously the case.
Of course the link between reduction of trafpol numbers and increase of cameras could never be related, could it?



And the road safety education message is one dimensional, and incorrect.



It is really a question of technology driving and defying logic and reason. We can enforce rigidly and robotically so we will.

For the last 80 years or so we have created the safest roads in the world through a policy of policing with discretion and integrity(generally) and intelligence(occasionally ). We are at serious risk of spoiling that.



RTTM answers that quite straighforwardly. Also it is evident when the primary causal factors of fatalities are analysed, that there will be almost 100% displacement of collisions. This is in fact what is happening and is evidenced by the fatality stats.



There is a misguided belief through the above "billions spent on .........road safety education" that speed reduction through speed cameras would perhaps have saved 'little Joe's' life. Many bereaved will campaign for erection of a camera at the site of the collision, in the understandable but misguided belief that this monument may cause some good to come out of their loss. The sad reality is that the boy racers or drink/drivers, or unlicenced uninsured drivers, or weekend bikers will either not care or go elsewhere to kill or die.

Questioning lack of RTTM compensation in camera benefit reports



Doesn't fully address RTTM or collision displacement.


Asking about inappropriate speed limits



Doesn't answer the question, but the respondent does not feel the need to. However the enforcement of inappropriate speed limits has never been the raison d'etre of road policing. The real problem with a blanket speed limit (especially a recently imposed lower limit) is that for perhaps 25-30% of the road the lower speed limit might be appropriate, but for the other 70-75% it is not. The cameras will position themselves in the area where the speed limit is inappropriate, citing the collisions which happened in the 25-30% areas as justification for the positioning.
So it's perhaps convenient for the respondent to brush off this question as someone else's responsibility.

These might however be the precise areas where most speeders are caught.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Give me strength....

So in other words, the partnership bods, being sat in a nice warm office miles away from traffic, can tell better than me at the scene of an incident, talking to witnesses, and viewing things in the might of 20 years experience of attending such incidents.

What complete bollocks.

More likely it means that I and my colleagues will report the ACTUAL cause of the incident, rather than the reason the camera brigade would like reported. In this area recently we have had a number of fatalities all of which were due to excessive speed. But NOT ONE would have been stopped by a camera as the vehicles were stolen / unregistered. If the drivers aren't going to stop for a marked police car, they sure as hell aren't going to slow down for a camera.

The ONLY way to get an 100% accurate reason for an accident is to cause it - second best is to use an experienced police accident investigator. Trying to narrow it down to speed to justify a partnership's existence doesn't even appear on the list.

Or, to put it another way... "We don't see the point of putting cameras in places where only a few idiots speed, but are likely to cause a danger, (but not generate much revenue for us) when we can put them in places where lots of sensible people safely exceed the speed limit... And are *much* more profitable".

If ever the whole "Safety" part of the name was contradicted by one short sentence, that has to be it!

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

What a post by IanH!

The bit that caught my attention most was safe driving is more about concentration than speed.

We had a speed kills advert on the tv. This guy driving in a built up area at 35mph looks down to change his cd. When he looks up he needs to panic break as the traffic is stopped. The obvious message is "concentrate on the road" or similar. Nah! it's "kill your speed" Unbelievable!

Is there doubt in some circles as to whether TrafPol numbers are falling due to cameras?
Parliament is aware that this is the case:
This link is to the Parliamentry Advisory Council for Transport Safety http://www.pacts.org.uk/research/Polici ... kPaper.pdf
The first paragraph belies the claims of the camera partnerships that the cameras are not displacing traffic police numbers

It goes on to give a full explanation regarding remote policing by camera.
Swimming pools employ life guards not cameras - and they dive in when you're drowning, not when you get wet!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Wrong.

I have seen planty of panic braking by vehicles already travelling below the speed limit. The thinking now seems to be that if there is a speed camera then it must be 30 zone, or I'll slow to <30 to be absolutely sure.

I have seen plenty of people travelling at 35 in a 40 zone, slam on the brakes and slow to 25 to pass a camera. I've even had one slow to 30 in a NSL zone!

Agreed Homer - it happens at Ings all the time - driver does 35 up to the camera in a 40 limit, then brakes hard "just in case".
As soon as they're past the white lines, they're off and away as fast as they can, to make up for lost time!
Last year, somebody over took racing away, not realising there was an island with a bollard and lamp standard on it!
Most of the accidents occur between half a mile to a mile away in either direction from the cameras!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

What I think they're trying to say is that the distance travelled during the reaction time is less at slower speeds (if it's assumed that the reaction time is a constant period of time).

I know, but the important bit is the reaction time - which doesn't change with speed (although it could be greater at lower speeds due to lack of alertness)

The distance travelled is irrelevant - due to the laws of probability.

But they're trying to imply that it is relevant.

The risk is proportional to exposure, and exposure is time.



Cheers
Peter

Not true - both distance and time create exposure. Park your vehicle in the outer lane of a motorway and you have exposure due to time, but no distance travelled. On the other hand, imagine you have a vehicle so fast that you can travel 100 miles along a motorway in a fraction of a second. The time is very small, but the distance creates exposure, indeed you would be almost certain to hit someone in that fraction of a second.

It's clearly true that the difference in distance travelled while reacting at different vehicle speeds can contribute to accidents. There may be a range of speeds where the general trend is reversed due to increased driver alertness, but the general trend is to take much more distance to react the faster you're travelling.