Government Sponsored Speed Camera Report Buried

[Chief]

Recent report on the success or otherwise of speed cameras in the UK found, where cameras were present on motorways, accidents rose by 55%, on A roads they were up over 30%, and on minor subsidiary road by over 20%.  Where police patrols were used as the primary means of moderating driver/rider behaviour, accidents were down by more than 15%!!!

The report included the data from all camera sites in the UK, and was buried by the government on the day of release. It was leaked by a disgruntled motorist to the Motorcycle News (Google the name ) who have run the story.

It would appear that they are now deliberately putting us in a danger and making money out of it....wonderful....

[Cat]

I've searched and can't find it anywhere.  Was it online or in the latest edition?

[Cat]

Aha, found it.  It was "published" in 2005 http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/602.asp

 

[Ron Avery]

Chief wrote (his post quotes are in black -  quote does not work)

....... A recent report on the success or otherwise of speed cameras in the UK found, where cameras were present on motorways, accidents rose by 55%,

"The TRL study monitored 29 major motorway construction sites with restricted carriageways covering over 730km of road from November 2001 to July 2003 .  It compared the rate and type of accidents for the same roads with an equivalent period without roadworks.

You obviously did not read the TRL report before you rushed to share it's unsubstantiated and quite frankly ludicrous findings  with the world

If you actually read the report, the purpose of the study was to see if roadworks and the type of diversions used on a motorway led to an increase or decrease in the number of accidents involving damage or injury .  Nothing whatsoever to do with looking at the effectiveness of methods of speed control. Of the 29 sites monitored only 17 used camera enforcement and two of those were by police in cars!!

It concluded that there was no significant difference in the number of personal injury accidents where road works were present and on page 46 it mentions that speed cameras were placed on sites thought to have a higher accident rate potential  and this was borne out by figures that showed that the sites that had cameras installed during the works had a 5% higher rate of accidents when there were no roadworks.

The report actually says that " No significant difference was observed in the personal injury accident rate for sites with or without cameras, however, there was a 1% decrease in the number of fatal and serious injuries at the sites where cameras were in use".

The 55% increase figure like a lot of the other facts quoted is nowhere to be found in the report.

.......on A roads they were up over 30%,  on minor subsidiary road by over 20%......

The study didn't  cover any roads other than Motorways[8-)].  Because the article was written by an American he did not know that "narrow lanes" referred to the carriageway width through the roadworks [:'(]

.......Where police patrols were used as the primary means of moderating driver/rider behaviour, accidents were down by more than 15%!!!

Again nowhere in the TRL report can this statistic be found, the only reference to polic is the checks using cameras and signage.

.....The report included the data from all camera sites in the UK, 

 No it does not,  see above, it only included roads where works were being carried out....

......... and was buried by the government  says who? It actually shows that speed enforcement reduces serious accidents  If it is buried how come I have just read it?  Now that is really buried........[Www]

............and leaked to MotorCycle News ......

who have run the story and made a complete cod's ear of it.

..............It would appear that they are now deliberately putting us in a danger and making money out of it....wonderful.... 

How you draw this conclusion from th report is beyond me. The article and your even more selective reporting is utter rubbish.  The article from an American source is based on dodgy editing, selective and/erroneous use of statistics to try and make or demonstrate a point that just isn't there

I have no love of speed cameras, either here or in the UK,  they have cost me a fortune, but utter rubbish like this does no favours to anyone campaigning against them and for more police on the streets and roads. 

 

[woolybanana]

None is ever likely to obtain funding for an in-depth study because too many people fill their rice bowls from the cameras. However bad the article, it does suggest that there might be alternatives to speed cameras and that the obsession with them is more financial than safety. Which begins to expose the cynicism of government and opens a tiny chink in the facade of their intentions.

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="woolybanana"]However bad the article, it does suggest that there might be alternatives to speed cameras and that the obsession with them is more financial than safety. .[/quote]

Yes the article says that but its not supported in any way by the facts in the TRL report is it? In fact is says the opposite. Like to see the next edition of Motor Cycle News will the headline be

"Speed controls reduced serious accidents says Government backed study".

[woolybanana]

Given the rocky state of the government, I think they are not likely to turn their attention to something as unimportant as road accidents.[6]

[Deimos]

There have been several such studies - all buried as they do not show what the government wants.  I remember years ago before the backs were painted yellow a major investigation showed how they increased accidents.  I have not seen this one before but they tend to show pretty much the same.

Other (slightly related) reports have shown that speed is not the major cause of accidents and deaths but rather it is careless driving.  Of course speed is a contributory factor and does increase the severity of accidents, but careless driving is by far the more significant factor.  Unfortunately, government cannot install machines to tax you for this so all the PR is about speed to justify their tax.

IanA

[Chief]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

Chief wrote (his post quotes are in black -  quote does not work)

....... A recent report on the success or otherwise of speed cameras in the UK found, where cameras were present on motorways, accidents rose by 55%,

"It concluded that there was no significant difference in the number of personal injury accidents where road works were present and on page 46 it mentions that speed cameras were placed on sites thought to have a higher accident rate potential  and this was borne out by figures that showed that the sites that had cameras installed during the works had a 5% higher rate of accidents when there were no roadworks.

The report actually says that " No significant difference was observed in the personal injury accident rate for sites with or without cameras, however, there was a 1% decrease in the number of fatal and serious injuries at the sites where cameras were in use".

The no-significant difference statistic is arrived at by amalgamating several items to skew the stats, when those items are seperated (the report i read had undertaken the exercise) the figures above were arrived at. Looks like your response indicates the trick they used has worked. I will attempt to find teh original report i read, and email the link, you can then do the stats yourself.

.......on A roads they were up over 30%,  on minor subsidiary road by over 20%......

The study didn't  cover any roads other than Motorways[8-)].  Because the article was written by an American he did not know that "narrow lanes" referred to the carriageway width through the roadworks [:'(]  The article4 i read suggested it had covered motorways, a roads and b roads.

.......Where police patrols were used as the primary means of moderating driver/rider behaviour, accidents were down by more than 15%!!!

Again nowhere in the TRL report can this statistic be found, the only reference to polic is the checks using cameras and signage.  Again, refer to amalgamation of stats above.  Guess they ahve you licked when it comes to unravelling stuff.  You accuse me of a rush to print, and provide ample example of a hideous level of ignorance yourself.

.....The report included the data from all camera sites in the UK, 

 No it does not,  see above, it only included roads where works were being carried out....see above

......... and was buried by the government  says who? It actually shows that speed enforcement reduces serious accidents  If it is buried how come I have just read it?  Now that is really buried........[Www] There is an apparent protocol that is used to highlight the release of such reports. This was cancelled and the report placed in the usual archive for this type pof thing.  This apparently antagonised some civili servant who drew attention to it and hence its contents became public. Issue is it was not marketed in teh manner in which it should have been and would have been had it reaped results preferred by HM Government

............and leaked to MotorCycle News ......

who have run the story and made a complete cod's ear of it. In you rushed to humble opinion i guess....

..............It would appear that they are now deliberately putting us in a danger and making money out of it....wonderful.... 

How you draw this conclusion from th report is beyond me. See above...The article and your even more selective reporting is utter rubbish.  The article from an American source is based on dodgy editing, selective and/erroneous use of statistics aaaah its getting through, now apply your new found wisdom and take another look....to try and make or demonstrate a point that just isn't there

I have no love of speed cameras, either here or in the UK,  they have cost me a fortune, but utter rubbish like this does no favours to anyone campaigning against them and for more police on the streets and roads. which in my opionion would be far preferrable to cameras....

 

[/quote]

[Cat]

Can I just step in here and suggest that you by all means discuss/dispute the issue, the report, the implications, whatever, but please leave aside personal insults.

You don't have to shoot down anyone to in order to "win" the debate. People on this forum are not stupid and can see the merit or lack of merit in someone's comments if you show the flaws in their arguement. 

Discuss the issue, not the poster.

 

[Bugsy]

Thanks Chief for bringing that to our attention. The only time I can get hold of MCN these days (apart from their website) is when visitors bring me a copy.

As to choosing who to believe between the current lying government and MCN, well, its no contest.

**Don't read too much into Rons posts, remember that this is a guy who thinks John Prescott was a good deputy leader......[:D][:D]

 

 

 

 

**that was a joke Ron [8-|]

[Chief]

[quote user="Bugbear"]

Thanks Chief for bringing that to our attention. The only time I can get hold of MCN these days (apart from their website) is when visitors bring me a copy.

As to choosing who to believe between the current lying government and MCN, well, its no contest.

**Don't read too much into Rons posts, remember that this is a guy who thinks John Prescott was a good deputy leader......[:D][:D]

**that was a joke Ron [8-|]

[/quote]

lol

[Ron Avery]

Oh dear Chief, you really haven't read the report at all have you?  You quote an article featured on an anti speed camera web site, supposedly based on  the TRL report.  The article does not even understand or bother to mention that the TRL report was about monitoring the number and type of accidents on roads where there were roadworks and comparing them with the same road when there were no roadworks looking at the different types of management, ie routing through them.  It was not about speed cameras at all and you accuse me of being ignorant, at least I bothered to read it before posting anything.  Anyone just glancing at the report will see who was duped and it wasn't me.

You say you actually read the TRL report before you posted your article. Well if you did, can you explain why you say that "it included A  roads and minor subsidiary roads".

It doesn't. The report only looked at Motorways.

You say it says "where cameras were present on motorways, accidents rose by 55%, on A roads they were up over 30%, and on minor subsidiary road by over 20%." 

Given that it does not even mention or look at A roads or minor subsidiary roads one can only wonder where those figures came from.  The report actually says  " No significant difference was observed in the personal injury accident rate for sites with or without cameras, however, there was a 1% decrease in the number of fatal and serious injuries at the sites where cameras were in use". 

Now if you want to believe that the same person who cannot even distinquish a minor road from a narrow lane through roadworks can extrapolate figures from complex tables well good for you!

You say that "The report included the data from all camera sites in the UK",

It doesn't.  It only includes data from 29 sites on Motorways only and only 17 of those had camera controls.  The only Police mentioned in the whole report carried out spot checks using CAMERAS!

You say that it concludes that  "Where police patrols were used as the primary means of moderating driver/rider behaviour, accidents were down by more than 15%"

It doesn't. Police patrols are not even mentioned, do a search of the report.

So which report did you read then?  There is no need to dig out the report that you read. The one I read on which he article was based is here Safety Performance of Traffic Management at Major Motorway Road Works  unless of course you read another one[Www]

Draw your own conclusions. Look at the list of roads etc etc  

I actually read it to see if there was anything in the article that you quote, having a professional interest, but as all of the assertions that you quote or made up yourself are completely false and not even mentioned in the report, I know who people will see as being ignorant and duped.

The sad thing about your rushed response is that you did not even bother to properly read what I wrote at the bottom, you were too full of yourself and wanting to score cheap and inaccurate points without actually realising that I was agreeing with your sentiment about more police patrols.  However, linking their need to such ridiculously inaccurate and unsubstantiated reports does the cause for more police patrols and less cameras no good at all and just plays into the hands of the speed control people who would bring back red flags.