How do I get the mobile speed camera on our road?

[DT Ralge]

It would appear that Speed cameras may not reduce accidents as much as the Government would have us believe.

 

The UK Statistics Authority has produced a report criticising the figures for casualty reductions...

 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/uk-dftstats.pdf

 

It would also appear that the British Medical Journal (BMJ) documented the problem in a 2006 report. While government statements lauded the benefits of speed cameras based on a claimed road injury rate that had fallen from 85.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (before cameras) to 59.4 in 2004 (after cameras), hospital admission records showed that the road injury rate actually increased slightly from 90.0 in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004. The BMJ attributed the discrepancy to the police undercounting the number of injury accidents that take place. The House of Commons Transport Committee earlier this month insisted that something be done to force DfT to produce more reliable reports."

 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1210.asp

 

Hold on, the first report you cite above is old news - it has always been suspected that the Police's record of injuries at the roadside understates the total seen in A&E AND it has been known for a long while that their reporting may well understate the severity of the injury.

This first link merely re-states the likely inaccuracies in the statistics and makes no assertion whatsoever regarding the effectiveness of cameras in reducing casualties. (The word "camera" does not get a mention in the whole document.)

 

I have no axe to grind about cameras, I'm just pointing out that this report does not back up your assertion ("It would appear that Speed cameras may not reduce accidents as much as the Government would have us believe") one little bit.

 

All it says is that there is a consistent under-reporting of casualties.

 

The second link ("casualties have not reduced") is 3 years out of date - there's plenty of reporting of the latest 2008 figures including here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/27/transport1

 

These most recent figures have seen a remarkable and unprecedented fall in deaths (in particular) but the fact that the figures have come down in recent years, year by year is down to quite a few factors and cameras have played a small part and one that is unmeasurable, in truth:

 

Things that have helped the fatality figures down to 2500 from 8000+ in 1966 and +/- 3500 in the period 1994-2004 :

- changes in law (DD, seatbelts)

- car technology (year-on-year, an increasingly "young" stock of cars on the road with a stockpile of installed technology)

- road building, engineering, technology (including cameras but there's lots of non-camera spending out there if you care to look)

- emergency response equipment, training, "golden hour" principles driving roadside medical practice

- (more recently) recession (?) less traffic?

 

So the Government/DfT can only sensibly have us believe that cameras played a small part in the whole.

Edited July 28, 2009 by DT Ralge

[DT Ralge]

The actual stats are massively more complex than any single statistic or headline can possibly convey - click on this link to see how the complexity of published figures on ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS from 2005 shape up:

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/contributoryfactorstoroadacc1802

 

For starters, note that there are, in this analysis at least, 77 contributory factors available to the police!

 

Happy reading (if you can keep awake long enough!)

 

Sorry to be a bore but did anyone have a look at this document to come to the realisation that crash contributory factors is a complex subject and a statistical nightmare (recording-, reporting- and analysis-wise) and hopefully think twice before blindly repeating headlines you read in the paper or read on here?

Edited July 28, 2009 by DT Ralge

[plekhanov]

Get over yourself. Speed isn't the issue, idiot drivers are.

And one of the things idiot drivers do is go too fast is it not?

[spindrift]

Liverpool University research:

 

Speed cameras:

 

'They reduce accidents as well as raising revenue'.

 

Dr Linda Mountain addresses the question of whether speed cameras are life savers or just revenue raisers

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2008/sep/16/speed.cameras.linda.mountain

 

 

 

Speed cameras do reduce accidents, say researchers

Liverpool, UK - 9 September 2008: Scientists at the University of Liverpool have developed an accident prediction model which proves that speed cameras are effective in reducing the number of road traffic accidents by 20 per cent.

 

 

http://liverpool.ac.uk/news/press_releases/2008/09/speed%20cameras.htm

[Cyclone]

What number?

 

This one, can't you remember what you've copied and pasted?

 

95% of accidents are caused through driver error (ROSPA)

You're not just delaying the exposure of the fact that you're making stuff up again?

Nope, just playing your silly little game back at you.

 

You claimed I lied, I asked where, you disappeared.

No, I showed where you lied, then I went to work. Maybe you don't have to work during the day, I do.

 

Now you ask for some mysterious number you won't name before you admit you've made stuff up again...

 

I named it, you loose.

Now back it up with a source (and putting [ROSPA] doesn't count) or shut up.

[Cyclone]

Stop making stuff up. Anyone is free to disagree with me and won't get the abuse you hand out willy nilly.

 

People who speed aggressively, whether below or above the posted limit (ie doing 30 in a 30 zone outside a school, in the wet ) is a speedophile. Not anybody else you make up. Just those who place their personal convenience over and above all other considerations, including the ten children EVERY DAY killed or seriously injured on the roads. Speedophiles pose a significantly greater danger to children than paedophiles do, unless you rank yourself among their number then the word 'speedophile' has nothing to do with you.

 

You're pretty damn quick to chuck out the speedophile label on the basis that someone disagrees with your made up statistics.

So since you know nothing about how they drive, you're either claiming to be psychic or once again jumping to wild conclusions.

[spindrift]

A much used statistic in Road Safety in that driver error is a factor in 95% of road accidents, whether by failing to notice a hazard, not reacting in time, or simply adopting a dangerous behaviour

 

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/motorvehicles/policy/preventaccidents.htm

 

 

Your turn.

 

Your sources, and show me where I lied.

[spindrift]

You're pretty damn quick to chuck out the speedophile label on the basis that someone disagrees with your made up statistics.

So since you know nothing about how they drive, you're either claiming to be psychic or once again jumping to wild conclusions.

 

 

Once again, I didn't call you or anyone here a speedophile.

 

I said that people who put their own convenience above the safety of anyone else is a speedophile.

 

Unless you identify yourself with people who threaten children you have nothing to worry about.

[Cyclone]

Neither report effects the case for speed cameras. Traffic growth, the explosion in mobile phone use, increased in-car safety (as in risk compensation) all may have had an effect.

 

The robust rule is, the higher the speed the greater the chance of collision and the higher the chance of serious injury.

 

Speed cameras slow vehicle speeds and reduce accidents, the latest research

from Liverpool University confirmed this even after allowing for regression to the mean.

 

You've made up this 'robust rule' nonsense before regarding bikes. Is it robust because you happen to agree with it?

 

If increased speed increased the likelihood of accidents then motorways would be the most dangerous roads. News flash, they aren't.

 

I've worked with traffic police, non of them were as anti speed as you seem to be. Inappropriate speed is dangerous, breaking the speed limit does not necessarily make the speed inappropriate, nor does being below it make it appropriate.

 

Link to 'the latest research'?

[spindrift]

"made up statistics."

 

‘Driver error causes 95% of crashes’

 

Christopher Bullock, chief executive of Britain’s Institute of Advanced Motorists, also debunked the view that road deaths and injuries are the result of accidents.

 

“Let’s be quite clear, there is nothing accidental about them at all,” he told a conference hosted by Irish Advanced Motorists.

 

“Deaths and injuries are caused by collisions, and collisions are, in over 95% of cases, caused by driver error. In other words, they are avoidable.”

 

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/04/27/story1718.asp

 

A scientific study for Mr Bullock’s organisation, conducted at London’s Brunel University, concluded:

 

* Driver attitudes changed with coaching — those who had received coaching were less likely to blame external factors when driving.

 

* Coached drivers saw a marked improvement in driving skills — almost 70% improved their basic driving skills.

 

* Drivers with coaching showed a 30% increase in their knowledge, or situational awareness.

 

Transport Minister Martin Cullen said one of the biggest challenges to be faced was the idea that road collisions were inevitable.

 

Nine-out-of-10 road deaths were a result of bad driver behaviour, he said. The Government was advancing “tough, sensible and necessary” measures to improve safety, he said.