At 3:25am last Friday, after much agonizing and discussion, Safe Speed issued the following PR:
PR409: Minister Ladyman fluffs, bluffs and misleads the House
news: STRICT EMBARGO: 00:01am Sunday 26th November 2006
On Tuesday in Parliament a minister fluffed, bluffed and ultimately mislead the
House. Safe Speed says it's a resigning matter.
In answer to a parliamentary question in Tuesday's Transport Questions in the
House of Commons, Roads Minister Ladyman responded as follows to a verbal
question by Conservative MP Richard Ottaway:
"I, I couldn't agree less with the honourable gentleman. The simple, the simple
fact of the ma... I mean he was even wrong when the - when he quotes the
Department's statistics, which actually show that about a quarter of road
fatalities involve, er involve er people er who are er er speeding or involve
speed in some form or another. And the fact of the matter is that this is a
situation that has been arrived at after the deployment of safety cameras which
I believe is actually having a pervasive effect on people's attitude to speed
on our roads, not just at camera sites but all around the road network. The
simple fact of the matter is that cameras work. We took steps last year to make
sure that there's no possible incentive for those who have to decide where the
cameras go up in terms of, of the finances of, of cameras. Um The the the, if
and the honourable gentleman says that three quarters of a million pounds were
raised by one camera - well that indicates that a heck of a lot of people were
speeding in that area and if they stopped speeding they wouldn't pay a penny."
(Safe Speed transcription. Audio recording available below; includes original
question)
Let's take that one bit at a time...
Ladyman: "...when he quotes the Department's statistics, which actually show
that about a quarter of road fatalities involve, er involve er people er who
are er er speeding or involve speed in some form or another."
This is an extraordinary and misleading response to a question about speed
cameras. Clearly speed cameras can only address 'speed in excess of a speed
limit' and recent Department for Transport figures show the following
proportions of crashes with exceeding the speed limit as a contributory factor:
All injury crashes: 5%
Fatal crashes: 12%
He's 'talking it up' to support speed camera policy. There is no justification
for adding other data to the 'exceeding speed limit' percentage. It isn't
'about a quarter'. He has SWITCHED from injury crashes (in the original
question) to fatalities and he's ADDED inappropriate speed crashes (which
cameras cannot detect or reduce).
Ladyman: "And the fact of the matter is that this is a situation that has been
arrived at after the deployment of safety cameras which I believe is actually
having a pervasive effect on people's attitude to speed on our roads, not just
at camera sites but all around the road network."
According to figures presented to the house by Dr Ladyman himself, 'excessive
speed crashes' are INCREASING in the speed camera era. We agree that the
effects are pervasive, but with roads fatalities way above expected levels we
are absolutely certain that these 'pervasive effects' are making matters far
worse.
Ladyman: "The simple fact of the matter is that cameras work."
Assuming that Dr Ladyman is claiming that speed cameras improve road safety,
Department for Transport LACKS two critical pieces of information that would
enable that statement to be made. 1) DfT has no adequate estimate for
'regression to mean effect' which is known to massively exaggerate the apparent
benefit at speed camera sites. 2) DfT has no estimates concerning the negative
side effects of the speed camera programme.
Therefore Dr Ladyman is wrong in fact.
Ladyman: "... if and the honourable gentleman says that three quarters of a
million pounds were raised by one camera - well that indicates that a heck of a
lot of people were speeding in that area and if they stopped speeding they
wouldn't pay a penny."
Actually it's almost certainly strong evidence of an incorrectly set speed
limit. The proportion of drivers using speed dangerously is small, so the
numbers caught should normally be equally small.
It also proves that the camera didn't stop them from speeding.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(
www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Dr Ladyman must resign. He is caught here
misinforming parliament about a matter of public safety. It's nowhere near good
enough."
"Speed cameras have failed as a road safety policy. Department for Transport
must admit their deadly mistake and scrap the speed camera programme. It's the
only way to re-focus road safety resources on the factors that really matter."
<ends>
Notes for editors
=================
Audio Recording from Commons Transport Questions on 21st November 2006:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pq001.mp3
Paul Smith of Safe Speed would be happy to enter any debate with any personnel
in any media to explore these issues and the system-wide effects of speed
cameras on road safety.
Journalists following this up might like to ask Dr Ladyman or DfT the following
specific questions:
1) Why does Department for Transport choose to exaggerate the proportion of
crashes involving 'exceeding the speed limit' as a contributory factor?
2) How large, exactly, does Department for Transport believe the regression to
mean effect is on average affecting 'KSI' statistics at speed camera sites?
What is the source for this figure? How accurate is it?
3) What system-wide negative side effects has Department for Transport
considered arising from the speed camera programme? How big are these effects?
3a) If DfT has no estimates for the values of system-wide negative side
effects, how can it justify a claim that speed cameras improve road safety?
3b) How is it possible that the side effects of speed cameras haven't been
considered after 14 years on British roads?
=====================================
I was hoping to make some news with it today, but it doesn't seem to have done so. I really think it should be a resigning matter - we cannot have a roads minister misleading Parliament.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
