Speed Camera Research Scrapped.

[GRAV888]

The Government cancelled research into the effect speed cameras were having on accident rates and driver behaviour, a request under the Freedom of Information Act has revealed.

The move by the Department for Transport (DfT) was described as "astonishing and grossly irresponsible" by anti-speed camera group Safe Speed.

The DfT said in its reply under the Act that its original research was replaced by research looking at the wider effects of cameras.

But Safe Speed, which believes cameras are having no effect on casualty rates, said the original research was dropped because the DfT was "scared about the likely results".

It was a Safe Speed member who organised the anti-road charging petition which attracted 1.8 million signatures on a Downing Street website recently.

Safe Speed has published its own report on the "side effects" of speed cameras, pointing out that neither road deaths nor the number of people taken to hospital after crashes had fallen as expected since the introduction of speed cameras.

Safe Speed founder Paul Smith said: "Our analysis is clear and confident and takes proper account of all known science, statistics and systematic analysis. Our confident conclusion is that speed cameras are making road safety much worse and must be scrapped immediately.

"It is astonishing and grossly irresponsible that the DfT has cancelled their important 'side effects' research. I can only imagine that they were scared about the likely results and would rather save face than save lives.

"I would love to see a DfT point-by-point response to our new report but of course they cannot properly respond because they have cancelled their research."

 

[porker1972]

The Government did commission a report in 1999. This was released in 2000, but never published to the fanfare expected as it didn't come to the conclusion the Government wanted.

I got a copy from the British Motorcyle Federation. The report was based on the Police RTA reports, complied whenever a "serious" accident occurs - when someone goes to hospital or dies.

The first thing stated was that there is never a single cause for an accident. Every accident (or incident as the Police prefer to call them) has several factors. They were listed in order in common occurance. I remember specifically that "excessive speed" was right at the bottom of the list - in just 6.9% of accidents / incidents, "excessive speed" was just one of many factors - NOT the reason for the crash. Note that the term "excessive speed" is used, not breaking the speed limit. This is because the Police believe that 70mph in fog in the motorway is excessive for the conditions, but it does not break the speed limit.

Put it another way, in 93.1% of accidents, speed plays no part whatsoever.

You'll be surprised to read that of the top ten factors in accidents, as many were the responsibility of the local council or highways agency as the driver: poor roadsigns, bad lighting, poor roadsurfaces, poor roadmarkings, even UNKEMPT HEDGES AND BUSHES were a factor in more accidents that speed!! The other factors that are driver or vehicle related: poor brakes, poor tyres & suspension, no lights / brakelights, tiredness, drink or alcohol. All things that proper Policing can detect, but a speed camera can't.

Lastly, two facts:
In 1990, there were 10 times as many people convicted for drink driving, dangerous driving or reckless driving than in 2000.

In 2000, there were 10 times as many people convicted for speeding than there were in 1990.

Make your own conclusions.

 

[Spinal]

Lastly, two facts:
In 1990, there were 10 times as many people convicted for drink driving, dangerous driving or reckless driving than in 2000.

In 2000, there were 10 times as many people convicted for speeding than there were in 1990.

Make your own conclusions.

Conclusions: (as seen by a goverment official imo)

Our streets are 10 times safer than in 1990! We are finally clamping down on all those speeding lunatics and the drink drivers have stopped drinking (or driving...)

Success?

 

[recycled]

The cameras are there to generate revenue and nothing else.
If they really want to cut speed, try measures that do not involve collecting money from people. e.g impounding cars, outright ban for a year.
It is only in britain that a shoplifter and mugger can get ABC acceptable behavior contract. if he commits crime he signs a contract not to commit crime for 3 months and all is forgiven and forgotten but if you hit 35 in a 30 you are harrassed for £60 as this is a heinous crime worse than robbing from an old lady cashier who is just trying to make a living.http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6703813.stm

Could it be because there is no money to be made from the retailers unlike the gold mine they are racking in from the roads and please can no one talk about slowing down as this will not work.
In ramsgate the police force had to return back thousands of fines in 2003 after they were caught out setting their motorway camera limits to 60mph because they had not generated enough revenue for the year end period.

 

[glojo]

Lastly, two facts:
In 1990, there were 10 times as many people convicted for drink driving, dangerous driving or reckless driving than in 2000.

In 2000, there were 10 times as many people convicted for speeding than there were in 1990.

Make your own conclusions.

If the Police reduce the active patrols on our roads then I guess the numbers of people caught drink driving will drop? If the Police don't breathalyse anyone then by magic the campaign against drink driving will be a huge success.

If next week our local Police are told to breathalyse every driver after 11pm at night, then I guarantee the figures for 1990 will seem insignificant.

Figures mean absolutely nothing and are just used for whoever wants to get onto a soap box.

I have for years stated the majority of fatal road accidents\incidents occur at speeds below 30mph. No speed camera will influence these figures.

We all talk about serious injury accidents\incidents, but how many people actually know what that means. What is the definition of a serious injury?

John

 

[Dieselman]

I have for years stated the majority of fatal road accidents\incidents occur at speeds below 30mph. No speed camera will influence these figures.

I agree with the points raised inyour post but would question this one. Is it that the deaths are occuring at speeds less than 30mph or that they occur in 30mph limits?

I suspect teh latter and a reasonable proportion of the vehicles involved are proceeding at more than the prescibed limit.
Whether that is provable is another issue.

 

[glojo]

I agree with the points raised inyour post but would question this one. Is it that the deaths are occuring at speeds less than 30mph or that they occur in 30mph limits?

I suspect teh latter and a reasonable proportion of the vehicles involved are proceeding at more than the prescibed limit.
Whether that is provable is another issue.

Unfortunately it is usually the spectacular that makes newspaper headlines but the great majority of fatalities involve pedestrians, cyclists, disabled carriages. The majority of these incidents occur at road junctions, traffic lights, roundabouts, busy shopping areas, sea side resorts, the list is endless, but when you get pedestrians walking out from in front of, or behind a bus or ice cream van the consequences are usually very severe. Cars turning from a major road into a minor one is also quite common, plus drivers cruising through a zebra crossing. With all these examples it is very rare for the driver to have been breaking a speed limit, aand it is quite unfair to suggest they were. Most of these innocent drivers will be traumatised for a very ong time.

Regards
John