Speed cameras: Truth or disinformation

[Chief]

Lifted from the BBC news website. 

 

Before speed cameras, the number of road deaths was falling dramatically but this is no longer the case. So do speed cameras really make our roads safer?

On a chilly morning in west London, a gaggle of schoolchildren dress up in sunflower T-shirts as part of a bizarre publicity offensive for speed cameras.

The group that runs cameras in the capital, the London Safety Camera Partnership (LSCP) is handing out sunflower seeds to every primary school in the capital to celebrate the 1,500 people who have been saved from death and serious injury by speed cameras in the past five years.

The communications manager for the LSCP, Christine Fitzgerald, is adamant they work. "They do save lives - our data suggests a 50% reduction. When you see a camera, just think somebody has either died there or suffered a life-changing injury."

What does she mean by "life-changing injury"? In London it's applied to anyone who has a serious injury, which can mean everything from paralysis to a broken bone or a concussion. A broken arm is serious, but is it really life changing?

This semantic sleight of hand infuriates the small band of speed camera opponents. Chief among them is Paul Smith, whose group, Safe Speed, does all it can to discredit cameras.

"The figure of 1,500 is a fraud, the vast majority is due to random variation in the location of accidents," he says.

Location location

For years the myth persisted that cameras were put up as a way to generate money rather than to make the roads safer.

Earlier this year the Department for Transport (DfT) tried to put this to bed. They revealed the requirements that cameras have to meet before they are installed. Principally, there have to have been three serious injuries at a camera site in a three-year period. In London it's even tougher with four injuries over the same period.

The government say there's compelling evidence to show that speed cameras save lives. The last evaluation in 2005 claimed there had been over 40% less people killed or seriously injured at camera sites.

Dr Linda Mountain, an engineering academic from the University of Liverpool isn't convinced by these statistics. She has spent three years investigating an effect which blows a hole in the government's statistics on speed cameras. It's a statistical phenomenon known as "regression to mean".

In simple English, it refers to the fact that any extreme score - high or low - at one point in time will probably be less extreme the next time it's tested for purely statistical reasons. This is because scores always involve a little bit of randomness - which can go for or against you.

When applied to accident road safety, it's the idea that if nothing was done at an accident hotspot, the number of accidents might fall naturally anyway, with or without a speed camera. Basically, if you are at the top of a list of accident hotspots, there's only way to go and that's down.

Dr Mountain tried to factor this into the government statistics. Her figures were significantly different to the official ones. She found by including "regression to mean", the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites fell by just over 20%, half the government's estimate.

Her report was tucked away in an appendix in the last major evaluation, although the government does accept that "regression to mean" has a significant effect.

Speed kills

This isn't the only doubt over road safety figures. The official statistics lump together deaths and serious injuries on the roads. These have shown a significant fall since speed cameras were introduced, leading to the inevitable conclusion - speed cameras save lives.

But the dramatic fall in serious injuries in road crashes puzzled some academics, who didn't think it reflected what was going on in hospitals. So they compared the hospital statistics for road injuries to the police figures, which the government uses.

"What we found was no substantial decline at all," says Michael Goldacre, a professor in Public Health from Oxford University, and part of the research team.

There's an even bigger problem with road deaths. In the decade before speed cameras came in, the number of road deaths fell by over a quarter. In the decade after they were introduced, deaths went down by just 8%, despite the improvement in new cars and the advances in emergency medical care.

The end of decades of rapid improvement is worrying experts like Jeremy Broughton, of the Transport Research Laboratory, who has written a report for the government examining what's happening to the road death figures.

He believes the problem is a minority of dangerous drivers who are not being deterred by speed cameras and need to be dealt with by more traditional forms of policing.

"When you drive home this evening, the likelihood of seeing a traffic cop is actually quite low and it's certainly much lower than it was 10 years ago," he says.

Problem drivers

The other problem with speed cameras is they rely on drivers to be honest enough to register their cars properly. We've uncovered evidence that drivers are deliberately registering their cars at other addresses to make it difficult for the authorities.

The anti-speed camera vigilante, Captain Gatso, told The Investigation that he registered his car at a different address, allowing him to ignore any penalties incurred.

It is difficult to say how many drivers are taking measure to avoid speeding penalties but there is certainly a particular enforcement problem in London, where over half of offending drivers are not being prosecuted.

Kevin Delaney, the former head of the Met's traffic police, believes this is evidence of a wider problem that speed cameras can only catch people that are basically law abiding.

"Any form of remote detection such as speed cameras relies on the information supplied by the public. If that isn't correct, then remote detection immediately falls flat. You need traffic police to catch the problem drivers."

The Investigation is broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Thursday 19 April at 2000 BST.

---

Some of the comments received on the BBC Website included:

Your report didn't mention one other factor, in addition to "regression to mean", on the government's figures - of the 3/4 accidents needed at a camera site, none of them have to have anything to do with speed, and include pedestrians falling off bridges, cyclists falling off their bikes, a man being injured by a deer he hit, and other things that have very little to do with cars, let alone fast driving.
Edmund Newman, Lyndhusrt, Hampshire

Speed cameras are completely useless. Deliberate speeders and reckless drivers just slow down for them, then speed up again. They arm themselves with camera detectors and drive around ignoring speed limits with impunity. The only people cameras catch are people who accidentally stray over the speed limit, or, because they are unfamiliar with the area and due to often inadequate signs, think the limit is greater. The other problem with this reliance on cameras is that they don't catch people committing more dangerous acts than speeding (mobile phone use, tailgating, drunk driving, unsafe vehicles, etc)
Andy B, Newport

[Ron Avery]

Why is this posted in driving in France?

[Clair]

Post moved by a moderator.

[ianf]

Totally irrelevant. However, the answer to the speed camera opponent both here and in France is: If you don;t want to get caught speeding then stick to the speed limits. Indeed in the UK we are warned about the speed cameras. In france the traffic cops hide in the bushes by the side of the road with no prior warning. As a cyclist I have seen many of these guys furtively hiding away in the undergrowth as I pedal past (within speed limits off course!).

 

[Ford Anglia]

[quote user="ianf"]

Totally irrelevant. However, the answer to the speed camera opponent both here and in France is: If you don;t want to get caught speeding then stick to the speed limits. Indeed in the UK we are warned about the speed cameras. In france the traffic cops hide in the bushes by the side of the road with no prior warning. As a cyclist I have seen many of these guys furtively hiding away in the undergrowth as I pedal past (within speed limits off course!).

 

[/quote]

ianf, I think you've missed the point of the OP. It's not about whether people want to speed, or do speed or get caught, or don't want to get caught, etc. It's about whether speed cameras are doing the job they supposedly are there for.

Recent questions asked of the DfT by Idris francis revealed a frightening series of "mistakes" (read, LIES), by the DfT in justifying speed cameras against for example, flashing warning signs, or traditional policing.

Personally, I rarely break speed limits, especially 30mph limits. What's the point? I don't want anyone's death or injury on my conscience, thanks very much.

But I DO have one or two problems with speed cameras:

They rely on arbitrary limits. Can anyone justify being prosecuted for going slightly over a limit of 70mph on a clear, dry, lit road with no traffic, while the limit past most schools is 30mph? Surely in the first instance, 70mph is low, whereas in the second, 30 mph is WAY too high at children's arrival and departure time. But it would be extremey difficult to prosecute anyone for doing </=30 mph past a school at those times.

Cameras CANNOT catch people on mobile phones, those driving catrelessly, dangerously, tailgating, drunk drivers etc etc. Yet they have DEFINITELY taken the place of a large number of traffic police, who COULD catch those people.

Finally, in the UK, at least, the preferred camera (preferred by ACPO), is the forward facing camera. Why? To get a photo of the driver's face to stop him/her saying it wasn't them. BUT: the forward facing camera can't catch motorcyclists, who account for 38% of serious/fatal injuries on UK roads. They only make up <4% of UK traffic, so not worth going after them..........for fines at least. Which makes me very suspicious about the Camera partnerships' claim to be safety, not revenue based. If they REALLY were about safety, surely, they'd go after that group? I've seen motorcyclists on other forums justify this on the basis that MOST motorcycle accidents are caused by careless car drivers. But according to DfT, this is not so: a large proportion of serious m/c accidents are single vehicle, which says loss of contol, to me.