Safe Speed Forums

large link

No stats to back Gatsos

Despite 13 years of speed cameras on UK roads, the Government has admitted that it still has no idea how many accidents are caused by speeding.
Anti-camera campaign group SafeSpeed petitioned the DfT under the Freedom of Information Act asking how many crashes were caused by people exceeding the limit – but they couldn’t answer because the research has never been done.
Current police accident reports do not make any distinction between excessive speed for the circumstances and breaking the speed limit, so accidents are listed as speed-related whether people were breaking the limit or not.
According to SafeSpeed, statistics from Durham, Avon and Somerset and Canada suggest that as many as 70 per cent of crashes where speed was listed as a factor, didn’t involve anyone breaking any speed limits. This means a speed camera would not have prevented the accident.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed, said: "Despite 13 years of speed cameras on British roads, the DfT can't even give us basic supporting information. The roads aren't getting safer, drivers are getting worse and speed cameras are far greater in distraction than in benefit.
"Our best working estimate for the proportion of crashes caused or contributed to by 'normal responsible motorists' driving in excess of a speed limit is under 2% of crashes. The contrasts very remarkably with official figures showing that 60% of vehicles are speeding at sample sites on most road types.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The problem with this type of expose is that you will still come up against the mindset that if we reduce average speeds and rigidly enforce them then the consequences of accidents will be mitigated.

It's the default position that every camera proponent argues from and to an otherwise apathetic public the argument makes sense.

Everyone on here knows it isn't that simple, but that's what we are up against ultimately. Argue that cameras aren't working at reducing accidents and people will assume that you mean they aren't working at reducing speeds for whatever reason, because they are convinced the reduce speed/reduce accidents relationship is either true or instinctively correct.

Yes, it isn't 'one argument that wins all'. But what it is is a constant drip drip drip that helps makes people think.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

A lot of the scammers data shows that speeds around camera sites fall. Accidents don't seem to be following suit when you remove the selection bias from the equation. If you quote a few sites where speeds have fallen and accidents have gone up (ignore RTTM and milk it!) then the common sense argument of lower speeds = fewer accidents/injuries starts to fall to pieces.

Article small compared to the one on LTI, but catchy - short but succinct.