Safe Speed Forums

I don't want to see cameras where there isn't a history of accidents...

Surely he should be saying "..where there isn't a history of speed related accidents..."

What is the point of slowing people down somewhere where the unusually high accident numbers can be attributed to drink driving/tailgating/driver inattention/etc.?

What we've said is that they should use a camera only when they've decided no easier form of speed control is appropriate

‘SPEED CAMERA NUMBERS WILL FALL’

Exclusive Interview BY STEVE FARRELL, MCN NEWS, 28 February 2007

LADYMAN STRUGGLES TO SHOW CAMERAS HAVE CUT ACCIDENTS

`The trust of motorists was lost... we have to win it back' STEPHEN LADYMAN

ROADS minister Stephen Ladyman wants to see cameras used only as a last resort

Now roads minister Stephen Ladyman admits shift away from cameras will begin in April

ROADS minister Stephen Ladyman has said there will be fewer cameras on British

Roads under new funding arrangements from April.

He said cameras would only be used as a "last resort" where all other measures have been exhausted.

We reported last week that the AA and RAC Foundation had said camera numbers will fall under the new funding system, which will see fines go to the treasury rather than to local speed camera partnerships. The motoring groups said the plans would remove the incentive to generate fines and that cameras failing to cut accidents would become a financial burden on local authorities and be deactivated.

Asked what effect the funding change would have on camera numbers, Ladyman told MCN last week: "I suspect they will fall." Instead of keeping fines, local authorities will have to apply for a portion of a new central road safety fund of £110 million a year. Grants will be awarded based on need, quality of plans and performance. Ladyman said: "It's not related to cameras anymore, so if they have no cameras or a hundred cameras or athousand cameras, then that won't have any bearing on how much money they get."

Local authorities will have to explore every possible alternative before resorting to cameras, according to Ladyman.

He said: "What we've said is that they should use a camera only when they've decided that no easier form of speed control is appropriate. Now that might be clearer signs. It might be traffic calming. It might be better design of the road layout. All of these things might improve safety at that location. It's only if all of these things aren't likely to be effective, and a camera might be, they should consider a camera." Ladyman admitted it was a change of emphasis in road safety policy away from speed cameras.

He said. "What I think has gone wrong is the trust of motorists in ' speed cameras was lost and we have" to win that back. Striking a deal with the motorist and saying: `They are going to be the last resort but they are going to be an effective tool when we need them,' I think is a reasonable way of doing it.

"I don't want to see cameras where there isn't a history of accidents and I certainly don't want to see them where there is a better way of making roads safer."

THE roads minister could not explain to MCN how it was possible to know speed cameras had cut accidents.

Government funded research shows a fall in collisions at camera sites but it was likely collisions would have fallen even without the cameras because they are sited where crash rates have been unusually high. The effect, known as regression to the mean, is acknowledged by the research.

Ladyman admitted last week the research didn't establish a reliable figure for how much of the fall in collisions was due to regression to the mean. Asked to explain how it was possible to know how much of the fall was due to the cameras, he instead referred us to the author of the research. He said: "She [the author] came up with what she believed was an estimate of regression to the mean at those particular sites and on that basis she concluded that there was a significant fall over the rest of the sites."

Ladyman admitted there had not been a significant cut in UK road deaths in 2005 and acknowledged annual reductions achieved in the '90s were greater than those of recent years, in which speed camera use has been more widespread. He nevertheless claimed the trend was due to the success of measures such as speed enforcement. He said they had been so successful that a threshold had been reached.

He said: "Every time you hit an easy target and you take the casualties that were occurring as a result of that easy target out of the picture, you make it more difficult to continue the downward trend." Government figures show that since 2000, when speed cameras use expanded under the National Safety Camera Programme, road deaths have fallen by just 6%. Between 1990 and 1993 a 27% fall was achieved.

In 2005 they fell by just 1%, but just-published provisional estimates for 2006 indicate a 1 % rise.

None of the above generate income for this govt.