Safe Speed Forums

If no-ones sent you one by lunchtime I'll do one for you then Paul.

Your piccy is in it again BTW

Speed cameras have failed to cut crashes

By Jo Macfarlane and John Ingham, Daily Express Wednesday 28 June 2006, page 19

SPEED cameras were last night branded a costly "fraud" as figures showed that they had failed to cut road accidents.

Hospital admission statistics for traffic injuries remained unchanged from 1996 to 2004 - a period of massive increase in the use of roadside cameras.

In some cases the number of admissions actually increased. But Government figures, based on police statistics, show a 21 per cent drop in the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads during the period.

The discrepancy was last night blamed on "under-reporting" of casualties by police.

Ministers are under huge pressure to justify the unpopular cameras, which cost £750million to install and last year led to fines for two million motorists.

Critics also blame them for an 11 per cent cut in the number of traffic police officers.

The hospital admission figures came as a survey showed that only one in eight motorists believes cameras are the safest way to reduce speeding.

Paul Smith, of road safety group Safe Speed, said the Department for Transport was using flawed police statistics to "justify a policy that is failing".

"Speed cameras are a £l billion industry and have delivered no road safety benefit," he added.

A spokesman for Motorists Against Detection said: "This report clearly shows that the whole speed camera experiment is based on fraudulent figures.

"Speed cameras have failed. Chief Constables must now use their power to pull the plug and put the money into traditional traffic policing."

The number of cameras has mushroomed to 3,300 fixed sites and 3,400 mobile devices.

Police statistics show the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads fell consistently from 85.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 59.4 per 100,000 in 2004 - putting the Transport Department on course to meet the Government's 40 per cent reduction target by 2010.

The figures are compiled by police at accident scenes. But a study by Oxford University researchers had now found that hospital admission rates for traffic injuries rose slightly, from 90 per 100,000 in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004.

The figures are compiled by clinical experts in hospitals after examining patients.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the researchers concluded: "The overall fall seen in police statistics for non-fatal traffic injuries probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of these injuries."

Mr Smith said: "The data from the NHS is robust. It represents actual events based on carefully considered medical decisions.

"By contrast the police data depends on individual opinion and a checkbox tick. I pray these figures mark the turning point where the Transport Department will finally face up to its catastrophic failure to manage road safety properly"

The Department denied its traffic policies were not working. "Any bold conclusions drawn from these figures would be misleading," it said. "There is no doubt road safety has improved, regardless of under-reporting. Deaths continue to go down."

The Association of Chief Police Officers stood by its figures.

And last year led to fines for two million motorists

One in eight motorists believe cameras are the safest way to reduce speeding

Is that correct? Surely they can’t be hitting 7% of motorists per annum? I would expect a national uproar.

One really cannot get one's head around the DfT!!!!!!!

One really cannot get one's head around the DfT!!!!!!!

I am staggered at their bare faced cheek and effrontery, as what they are - effectively - saying is that the number of hospital admissions is over-inflated!

Why would they over-inflate these figures? What purpose would that serve?

Firstly I would like to say that I have never written to my MP or the press before in my life, but today's BMJ article on the difference between so-called Safety camera/Police statistics and the real numbers of people being treated after road traffic accidents is one deception too many.

I have long been aware of the fact that the replacement of police patrols with cameras has had a subtle but incessant negative effect on road safety. If the trends that we had for decades prior to the introduction of speed cameras in the late 1990s had continued, we would have saved approximately 7,000 lives. These additional road deaths can be fairly blamed on these policy changes.

The self-funding/self-interest Safety Camera Partnerships must end. The evidence of lies, tricks and arguably perverting the course of justice by these groups is quite staggering.

£800 billion in fines and 7,000 lives lost is just too much.

So the question is, can you please help?

As the article on p19 of the Daily Express, this morning, has shown, “SPEED cameras were last night branded a costly "fraud" as figures showed that they had failed to cut road accidents. - . . . etc . . . - Critics also blame them for an 11 per cent cut in the number of traffic police officers.”

We are now seeing the truth of the matter and also what would seem to be lies that have been perpetrated about speed cameras. It is about time that the police and government owned up to what would seem to be just a swindle and fraud that unnecessarily penalises perfectly safe drivers with no benefit to road safety. They should now turn their attention to more effective and less damaging ways of improving road safety and only use speed cameras where they are absolutely essential.

£800 billion in fines

£800 million I think!

The DfT stood by its figures"

They really must think we all fell off the fucking banana boat yesterday.