Safe Speed Forums

Deaths and serious injuries down a quarter near speed cameras

Analysis of data for 551 fixed speed cameras in 9 areas shows that on average the number of fatal and serious collisions in their vicinity fell by more than a quarter (27%) after their installation.

There was also an average reduction of 15% in personal injury collisions in the vicinity of the 551 cameras.
However the research also highlights 21 camera sites (in the 9 areas) at which, or near which, the number of collisions appears to have risen enough to make the cameras worthy of investigation in case they have contributed to the increases.

The data was released after 2011 as part of a government move to make speed camera operations more transparent to the public. The analysis formed part of work - commissioned by the RAC Foundation and carried out by Professor Richard Allsop of University College London - to provide advice on interpreting speed camera data.
The estimates for collision reduction were made allowing for the more general downward trend in the number of collisions in the 9 areas in recent years, and for the effect of so-called regression to the mean at sites where collision numbers were unusually high in the period before the cameras were installed.

The study comes in the wake of the 2011 instruction from government that speed camera data going back to 1990, detailing accident statistics before and after fixed speed cameras were installed, be made publically available.

Since 2011 only a third (12 out of 36) of the organisations (a mixture of councils, police forces and safer roads partnerships) responsible for the figures have published the information in a format which complies with official Department for Transport guidance.

The RAC Foundation asked Professor Allsop to produce a technical guide for local authorities and other interested parties to help them interpret the complex data. As part of his work Professor Allsop studied data from nine of these authorities (with the data from one area being divided into two groups of cameras) and the results are as follows:

Partnership area - Cameras in partnership area - Average % fall (rise) in Fatal or Serious - All personal Injury collisions near cameras - Number of cameras worthy of investigation
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough 47 - 42 - 0 - 4
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland 15 - 53 - 29 - 0
Lincolnshire 50 - 15 - 9 - 0
Merseyside 33 - (5) - (10) - 9
South Yorkshire 56 - 16 - 0 - 1
Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent – 1 42 - 44 - 32 - 3
Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent – 2 26 - 29 - 23 - 0
Sussex 55 - 36 - 21 - 1
Thames Valley 203 - 24 - 20 - 1
Warwickshire 24 - 38 - 25 - 2
TOTAL 551 - 27 - 15 - 21

Note: The Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent cameras naturally split into two clear groups. The first group contains cameras at sites where there were relatively few collisions and the second has sites at which there were relatively many.

Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said:
“At the end of 2010 we published a report by Professor Richard Allsop which concluded that without speed cameras there would be around 800 more people killed or seriously injured each year at that time. Overall his new work reinforces those earlier conclusions, but crucially the study has also identified a number of camera sites in the vicinity of which collisions seem to have risen markedly. This may or may not be related to the cameras but warrants further investigation. Therefore, on the basis of this study, we have now written to eleven local authorities suggesting they examine the positioning and benefits of a total of 21-27 cameras.

“This is an intensely complex issue, but there is no one better placed to carry out the task than Professor Allsop and he has now produced a technical guide to help those interested in the subject try and better understand the numbers published for their areas.

“What is disappointing is that only a third of those bodies required to release the data have done so in a readily useable and consistent form.”

7 June 2013 Last updated at 13:54

Speed cameras cut injuries by a quarter - RAC research
Speed camera The report authors said the evidence showed that speed cameras were effective
Continue reading the main story

Speed cameras cut the number of serious injuries in road accidents in the areas where they are placed by an average of more than a quarter, a study suggests.
The research by the RAC Foundation was based on data from 551 fixed camera sites in nine areas of England.
Twenty-one sites bucked that trend, however, with the number of injuries going up.
The RAC Foundation said the findings showed how effective speed cameras were for road safety.
The study found that after cameras were installed the average number of fatal or serious injuries fell by 27%.

'Lives saved'
The authors of the report have written to those councils where the figures have risen suggesting that they try to find out why this is the case.
RAC Foundation director Stephen Glaister said: "Safety cameras are contentious, people dispute whether they work.
"But in fact the general public as a whole like them because they want these roads to be made safer.
"If cameras were turned off overnight there would be something like 80 people killed extra a year and 800 people killed or seriously injured.
"So the evidence is very good that on average they do work, they are effective."

Speaking later on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Glaister also said that speed cameras represented "very good value for money".

'No panacea'
But Claire Armstrong, the co-founder of campaign group Safe Speed, disputed his conclusions, arguing that speed was a factor in just 6% of road accidents.

"Speed cameras have unintended consequences and have given rise to some collisions and casualties that would not have occurred if the cameras had not been deployed," she said.
[THIS IS WRONG, I was at this point quoting Professor ALLSOP off the RAC website!]

The main cause of road accidents was driver concentration, she suggested, so reducing speed was not a "panacea".
"If you are simply driving at, let's say, 20mph you are not necessarily concentrating... and if you're not concentrating and paying attention to the road ahead, and you therefore cannot stop in the distance you know to be clear in, it doesn't matter what speed you are doing, you potentially will still have an accident.
"We know there are accidents that will kill you at 3mph and accidents where you will not die at 80mph."
The coalition cut Whitehall funding for speed cameras when it came to power.

It said police and local councils relied on the devices too much, and should use a range of different methods to improve road safety.
But a study last year suggested that so far most councils had kept speed cameras in place.

BBC transport correspondent Richard Westcott said speed cameras have been controversial since they were introduced 20 years ago - but this research suggests most of them make roads safer.

Hardly the 'speed cameras save lives' as he states in this recent report! And a shame that it has not been quoted properly as I said it very clearly in the interview that this is what PA said and this is clearly highly significant.

All safety equipment can itself cause problems, but the question is if on average is having it better than none at all.
Saying that sometimes speed cameras can cause problems does not invalidate the argument that in general they improve matters.

So what problems do you see from what safety equipment ?

Cor, lots.

Helmets can obstruct vision. Fire proof jackets can restrict mobility, harnesses and seatbelts can make it slower and more difficult to get out of a crashed vehicle when you need to, cycle helmets have been shown to invite closer passed by motorists, sun visors to stop glare can make things go suddenly dark when you enter a tunnel, I could go literally on forever.