Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Nov 18, 2019 20:16

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 05:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
IEA here
Paul Withrington wrote:
Speed reductions – costs and benefits
Paul Withrington - 27 September 2011

The cost of reducing speed is of particular interest since ‘speed’ is said to be a factor in a high proportion (30%) of road accidents. Consequently motorists have been subjected to ever lower speed limits and a punitive speed camera regime.

For example, the current advice (DfT Circular 01/2006), is that speed limits should be set at the average speed rather than, as previously, at the speed below which 85% of motorists travel (the 85th percentile). That implies (a) a universal speed reduction in the range 5 mph to 10 mph and (b) 50%, rather than 15%, of us will be travelling more slowly than we would otherwise choose.

A question not addressed by the authorities is the delay cost due to the lower speeds and the corresponding value of the accident reductions. It is that that we address here.

The value of time for the average vehicle is circa £12.80 per hour at 2009 prices. Hence reducingthe speed of 1,000 vehicles per day from 25 to 20 mph over 5 miles would cost £234,000 per year. The same for all cars and vans on urban roads would cost £12.6 billion and a 5 mph speed reduction on cars and vans on all roads would cost £17.1 billion annually.

Transport Research Laboratory notes 421 and 511 suggest a range of accident savings that are often summarised as a 5% reduction in casualties per 1 mph reduction in average speed. If that is applied to the 230,000 casualties in 2008, along with the average casualty cost of £53,000 then the saving following a 5 mph speed reduction would amount to £3 billion, far below the £17 billion delay costs implied by the speed reduction.

Since the values of time and casualty are supposed to reflect the way humans react when faced with the real world these numbers suggest that, rather than slowing traffic down, the policy should be to speed it up.

Speed cameras
Speed cameras are credited with saving 100 lives per year. However, this claim ignores effects such as regression to the mean in the context of the practice whereby a camera is installed only if there have been four killed or seriously injured casualties (KSI) in three years within 500 metres of the site.

Instead of the long established nation-wide downward trend in deaths per vehicle-km of 7.1% per year accelerating under the impact of the cameras, that trend flattened off to 2.5% after 1995 as illustrated in Figure 1. That happened despite the cameras being supported by tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of speed humps and the endless traffic management schemes that impose huge economic costs upon the nation.

Had the previous trend continued there would have been 10,000 fewer deaths than actually occurred. Indeed, compared with the pre-1995 trend, there were 370 extra deaths for every doubling of fines. The correlation is remarkable (see Figure 2). Of course there is no obvious causal link but, had the matter been the reverse of the facts, doubtless the cameras would have been given the credit.

The June 2007 value for a fatality is £1.64 million. If that is increased by 10%, to allow for lesser casualties, the 10,000 extra deaths imply a casualty cost, laid at the door of present policies, of £18 billion for the period. Additionally, in excess of 13 million motorists were fined, most of whom were driving as well as could reasonably be expected. If those fines averaged £70 the amount taken was nearly £1 billion, let alone the cost of increased insurance premiums and the losses suffered by those who were banned. A reasonable conclusion is that the road safety policies pursued over the last 15 years have been a financial and human disaster.

Tags: Paul Withrington, Policing, speed cameras, Environment and transport
Please visit the site and add your comments too ! :)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:11 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
Good article! :clap:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 16:05 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Well why not? Significant capital is invested to "reduce train journey times".

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 19:24 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
Well why not? Significant capital is invested to "reduce train journey times".


But never at the expense of operating safely. If reducing the journey time from London to Manchester by twenty minutes increased the number of accidents by 5% it would not be regarded as acceptable.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 03:01 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
Well why not? Significant capital is invested to "reduce train journey times".


But never at the expense of operating safely. If reducing the journey time from London to Manchester by twenty minutes increased the number of accidents by 5% it would not be regarded as acceptable.

No problems there then, not at a system-wide level anyway.

Besides, if a train were to derail or some such, surely a faster train would result with more casualties? Should we impose a default 20mph limit through all train stations?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 03:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Paul Withrington wrote:
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS BLOG
This is widely circulated. ………………

Read about the economic cost of reducing speed here:
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/speed-reduct ... d-benefits

Unfortunately the first comment on this article makes an unreasonable accusation, namely that the paper “contains no evidence and then goes on to generate spurious figures based on an unjustified assumption”. Hopefully readers will look back at the article and find it full of evidence and empty, or nearly so, of assumptions other than that the Department for Transport’s data and the values it assigns to time and casualties are correct.
………………

Also read about the costs of traffic management here:
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/traffic-mana ... ous-policy

and about the transport policy of the past decade here:
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/transport-po ... ast-decade

Regards Paul Withrington BSc MSc MICE C.Eng

Transport Watch
12 Redland Drive Northampton NN2 8QE
Phone 01604 847438 Fax 01604 455074
E-mail info@transport-Watch. uk.net:
Web site http://www.transport-watch.co.uk

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:57 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Steve wrote:
dcbwhaley wrote:
Steve wrote:
Well why not? Significant capital is invested to "reduce train journey times".


But never at the expense of operating safely. If reducing the journey time from London to Manchester by twenty minutes increased the number of accidents by 5% it would not be regarded as acceptable.

No problems there then, not at a system-wide level anyway.

Besides, if a train were to derail or some such, surely a faster train would result with more casualties? Should we impose a default 20mph limit through all train stations?


Not just stations, the Rayrigg accident was nowhere near a station. Best have a 20 limit over the whole rail network to be on the safe side - after all, if it might just save one life...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.336s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]