Safe Speed Forums

Hi,

Like last time, I sent the following questions to the ChSCP:


Hi,

I wonder if you can answer the following questions for me:

1. Why do camera partnerships claim success when cameras are placed on roads with 'freak' numbers of accidents that would have reduced anyway even if you'd have placed a waving gnome at the site?

2. Why, when quoting casualty figures, is the long term trend ignored in favour of a 'spike' drop (example 2002-2003, yet if you look a bit further back and compare the overall trend, it is nothing to write home about)

3. Why are speed limits in NSL areas being reduced to ridiculous levels? Is this done to deliberately create a speeding problem which would cause the introduction of a mobile or fixed site?

4. Why are deaths increasing at hundreds of camera sites around the country?

5. Why is our traditionally excellent road safety trend being destroyed and reversed - which coincides remarkably with the mass deployment of cameras?

6. Why do you and the government promote the message "speed kills" when the roads with the highest speeds have the lowest number of fatalities and serious injury accidents? (i.e motorways)

7. Why are countries which don't have the "speed kills" message as a keystone of road safety policy performing better than the UK when it comes to reducing casualties on our roads? (Germany and Italy are two great examples). Why are these countries maintaining a downward trend in the KSI / General accident stats when ours is reversing?

8. Why have we absolved all responsibility for pedestrian road safety from pedestrians themselves. I quote an example from Cambridgeshire Partnership who have a game on their website which questions a treatment option for a road which has children playing chicken with traffic? The suggested answer is to install a Gatso! This really makes my blood boil.

There is absolutely nothing about pedestrian education, green cross code, safe crossing points, correct kerb discipline - or at the bottom line, parental responsibility (or in this case - downright criminal irresponsibility)

Answers to these questions would be much appreciated.





The chap sent back the following, and he was very courteous so don't be too harsh

Mr Paton

Thank you for your enquiry to the Cheshire Safety Camera Mailbox. I will do my best to answer your queries. I am assuming you have a knowledge of the ethos of the scheme so i will just go straight into answering your questions directly as best as i can as they apply to Cheshire.

1. This partnership claims success only in an indicative sense. We have only been operational for 2 years and so any results we release we do so with the caveat that the results are indicative. We will be in stronger position to claim 'success', 3 or preferably 5 years after implementation of cameras. This avoids misleading conclusions being made about short term results that may be affected by unusual conditions such as bad weather. An independent report published last year suggested that cameras are having a positive affect across the country. I am lead to believe that a new report is due soon that includes a regression to the mean analysis.

2. Please see above. We have released casualty information last year and will do again soon, but with the caveat on. We have a 3 year baseline for all sites but of course do not have a comparable length of time after installation as yet.

3. Here in Cheshire we do not as a policy enforce at roads where speeds limits have been reduced in the last 12 months at least. We try to ensure that the casualty data and speed data are from the same period. I must add that no-one involved in the Cheshire Scheme has the power to set speed limits.

4. It is unfortunate that deaths are still occurring on our roads. But here in Cheshire we do not claim that cameras will prevent all collisions occurring. What we are hoping to see over the long term is a reduction in the number of actual collisions and in those that still occur a drop in the number of KSI casualties that have occurred.

5. Here in Cheshire the number of KSI casualties is consistently falling.
Between 1994-1998 the average figure of KSI's was over 1100. We are now closer to 700. This is still too many. However the majority of this drop is down to a partnership based road safety strategy. Our cameras cover less than 100km of the 5,500 km of highways in Cheshire. Cameras in Cheshire are used as an additional resource to road safety not as something to replace it.

6. Speed does kill and no-one can argue it doesn't. You are correct to assume that speed may not be the sole cause of all accidents. However if a car hits someone at 10 miles per hour they will probably just get a few bumps. But if they are hit at 100mph they are likely to die? In such a case the speed has killed. It may not have caused the accident but it certainly contributes to the outcome.

7. As far as i am aware the KSI figures in the UK are falling and as a nation we are on target to meet the governments 2010 target of a 40% reduction in KSIs. I cannot comment on Germany or Italy's figure. However I am aware that more people die on Germany's road than the UK's, so maybe they have more scope to reduce their figures?

8. You are quite right. Not only pedestrians but all road users. People need to take more responsibility for their actions on our roads including drivers. Much work is done in Cheshire with road safety officers and junior road safety officers (in all primary schools) to ensure good road safety packages are being delivered. Of course this doesn't get into the newspapers as its not good copy. We need to understand that cameras take 99.99% of all road safety press but are in fact quite a small part of the wider strategy. This is sometimes lost when cameras are debated in public.

Cameras do work in addressing particular problems (speed and red light
running) at particular sites. But a lot more goes on through local authorities, Police and fire service to improve other areas of road safety.
Maybe it would be worthwhile you contacting your local highway authority and asking them what they do to help road safety? We do not put propaganda on our website. We do not feel the need. If people stick to the speed limit then they would not get a speeding ticket. A result of this may be that they also wont be involved in a vehicle collision. However if they are, a reduced speed may seriously affect the outcome of that collision. It is undeniable that the faster a vehicle is going the greater the force of impact will be imparted on that collision. Is it not common sense that if that car was driving slower than there would be less force involved in the collision?

I am sure i will not be able to tell you anything haven't heard before, but this scheme will continue to work in partnership to further drive down the unacceptably high number of people hurt on our roads.

I hope you find this information useful but please feel free to contact us again should you require any further information.

Regards

Cheshire Safety Camera Partnership

Oh for goodness sake

I think it's worth avoiding KSI and sticking to deaths. KSI is a favourite fudge figure IMO. If there's 100 more dead but 120 fewer seriously injured they can claim KSI is down 20. If it's the other way round they would probably choose to say deaths are down. KSI can be too easily used to present an unfavourable rise in deaths in a favourable light. Ask the partnership about the numbers of dead and they'll look to answer you with KSI, and you can reply that they didn't answer the question properly.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

point 5 - in one breath they say they have minimal coverage of cameras in the next they say they are sure a partnership approach has lead to the reduction. clearly this is rubbish (what about vehicle and medical improvements not to mention the slight reclassification of casualties KSI, casualties accidents all different)

point 6 - speed didn't kill being run over was the problem. Perahaps we should be campaigning for planes to be restricted to altitudes of 10 ft and max speed of 20mph. While we are at it lest stop boats sailin in water deeper than 5 ft to reduce drowning.

edited

This is absurd. You should ask them how many accidents like this have occured, where a person was driving at 100mph in a situation where 10mph was the appropriate speed. I bet zero licenced drivers with registered cars who were not fleeing the scene of a robbery.

Johno, feel absolutely free to do as you please

I think the point about changing the KSI to plainly fatalities is a good idea though, gives then less of a chance of a comeback.