Safe Speed Forums

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 20:20 this evening:

PR233: Hidden report reveals serious speed camera dangers

News: for immediate release

TRL report number 595, commissioned by the Highways Agency and delivered in
early 2004, looked at motorway road works crashes and evaluated the effects of
various safety treatments. Safe Speed obtained a full copy and found the
following information:

* Where fixed speed cameras were installed at road works the risk of personal
injury crashes was increased by 55%.

* Where fixed speed cameras were installed on open motorways the risk of
injury crashes was increased by 31%.

* Average speed cameras also increased the risk of crashes by 4.5% at
roadworks and 6.7% elsewhere.

* Conventional Police patrols reduced the risk of crashes by 27% at road works
and 10% elsewhere.

* Speed cameras were associated with an increase in crash severity with fatal
and serious crashes being 32% more likely where speed cameras were operated.

* Motorway road works are no more dangerous than open motorways.

In the executive summary, the seriously damaging information presented in the
report isn't calculated out - except as an aggregate with Police patrols
included. The police patrols showed a positive benefit while the speed cameras
showed a negative effect. These two were allowed to cancel out to show zero as
a net benefit.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said:

"It is outrageous that this sort of information has been hidden from the
public. We all need the best information to help us to drive as safely as
possible. Whenever we are driving we have to manage risk - and the more we
understand the real risks the better we manage them."

"We have all seen strange driver behaviour where fixed speed cameras operate.
This report highlights the dangers. We're not surprised to see this
information - we have know for years that speed cameras were the wrong road
safety strategy, and it's a huge relief to see the truth coming out so
clearly."

"It has often been argued that digital speed cameras (which measure average
speed between two points) lack the 'obvious' problems of single location speed
cameras - for example you cannot defeat the camera by slowing briefly - but
this information shows that digital speed cameras also make the roads
more dangerous."

"After thousands of hours of research it became obvious to me that speed
cameras were having a negative effect on road safety. The evidence used to
support the speed camera programme has been weak and inadequate - often based
on nothing more than false assumptions. Now the truth is emerging, I'm
hoping for an immediate return to former road safety policies - policies that
delivered the safest roads in the world. Road safety isn't founded in 'simple'
things like vehicle speeds - instead it is founded in complex and subtle human
behaviours - we have to help drivers to make fewer mistakes, not force them to
pay too much attention to one minor safety factor."

"Many motorists won't be surprised by the news - they have always harboured
deep suspicions about the speed camera programme - and will be relieved to
learn that they were right all along."

"We must get these dangerous cameras off our motorways RIGHT NOW!"

"The Highways Agency have reported an increase in road worker deaths in the
first half of 2005. They should read their own research and get rid of the
dangerous distracting speed cameras."

<ends>

Notes for editors:
==================

Previous Safe Speed PRs, issued before the full report was obtained:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/76
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/77

Safe Speed web page with copy of table 3.18 and calculations shown:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html
Editors and journalists may also quote freely from that page until 30th
September 2005 - after that date contact the office for permission.
=======================================

This might just be the most important news item we have ever handled. Please read it. Be sure to understand it. Forward the PR and the web link to other boards or by email. EVERYONE needs to see this stuff. Speed cameras? It's all over. I have advanced the camera meltdown countdown to 2 days.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Great work, Paul. Nice one. Hopefully this news can make it into lots of papers or, even better, on the telly.

It would also be interesting to see what actual road workers feel about the effects of cameras on their safety.

The report may be seen on American soil:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-trl595.pdf

Please note: British readers who wish to make fair use of this important, taxpayer-funded public policy information agree by clicking on this link that they have already sent 40 quid to TRL for the privilege of learning the truth.

This stuff is dynamite, it really is. There needs to be a full investigation into why this information was not acted upon. Who was responsible for acting against the public interest by suppressing this? Heads need to roll.

Ist what we all know. Scams? all the do ist measre speed at certain point. Person coul dbe below speed limit before und after this point. Conversley they could just slow for scam und accelerate away. Ist waste of time... ist safer driving standard which ist required - move to a higher standard und not dumb down like school exam.....

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Only five hours (or so) after Paul's press release this appears on BBC News Online. No, not related to his PR but a Highways Agency PR!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4158198.stm

It remains to be seen what angle other news sources will take when presented with the two apparently conflicting press releases on the same subject.

Gareth

Is this part of the explanation for the change in the proportion of K to SI which we have been looking for?

Could be - but there were not enough K in the study for anything approaching statistical significance.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The Highways Agency can't move that fast. But I've been hawking the story around since last Thursday looking for a large scale exclusive treatment by a broadsheet. I heard late yesterday afternoon that the Highways Agency had issued their PR, so we released ours.

Clearly the Highways Agency responded to our story, then we responded to their PR.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Hmmm, I wonder if that is because you can see a police car from miles away and can reduce your speed slowly as opposed to just slamming the anchors on which is what happens when people see a camera at the last minute.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Clearly Police patrols can deal with all manner of dangerous behaviours as well as unsafe speeds...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Police patrols?????? What's one of those when it's at home?

Seriously though, I don't know if it's me getting old or what, but I am surprised that there are not more accidents on motorways than what there currently are.

What makes me think this is when I observe the gaps (or rather the lack of them) that people leave between themselves & the car in front.
It seems to be commonplace that a majority think the "obligatory" gap should only be 1½ car lengths at 70mph regardless of the conditions.
I personally go for (and am more than happy with) the tried & tested "2 second" rule, although even that has to be lengthened if it is raining, foggy, etc.
Some road users however (and this really pisses me off) seem to think that my application of the 2 second rule is an invitation to cut in front of me and remove the "safety" zone that I have created.
Strangely enough, this type of behaviour only seems to occur when I am driving the car. If I happen to be on my bike, then a high percentage tend to give me a wide berth (I still haven't worked out for sure why this is though).

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

You're not the only one Gixxer. It really annoys me too. It leaves the sensible driver few options, all of which have problems: give it up and chew exhausts like the others around you, sit in L3 where it's easier to maintain the gap, put up with having to slow down contiually to maintain the gap to the point you're going far slower than you'd intend, or get off and find an A road. Okay, bit of exaggerating going on there, I admit but the point is that the behaviour of other drivers sometimes makes it very difficult to drive as we'd ideally want to on motorways.

Ahem, back to the topic sorry.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Yet more assertions founded on non-existent evidence...

The "information" from the HA on the BBC news page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158198.stm is entirely characteristic:

ROADWORKER CASUALTIES
2005
4 deaths, 5 serious injuries
2004
1 death, 7 serious injuries
2003
2 deaths, 10 serious injuries

This is supposed to demonstrate a meaningful trend is it? Apart from anything else, where's the evidence the data have been normalised for the number of roadworkers in the number of roadworks on which type of road - which clearly varies over time? Or that 3 didn't lose their lives in one particularly unfortunate set of circumstances?

Deaths+serious injuries: 2003 - 12, 2004 - 8, 2005 - 9 so far. What's the confidence interval when trying to infer a trend from figures like these? +/- 200%?? Difference between a death and an SI, especially in the likely scenario where road worker (pedestrian in effect) gets hit by vehicle? Indistinguishable from fluke on this kind of miniscule sample.

However, none of this detracts from the danger that roadworkers are subject to, the potentially awful consequences for them and their families, and the need to do something about it.

Absolutely - but 'something' is nowhere near good enough - we need to do the best thing, not the worst. And here we have it - Police patrols -27% Fixed gatsos +55%. And the Highways Agency have gone with - wait for it wait for it - fixed gatsos. One on the M4 generated 1.4 million pounds and led to me filing the original FoI request that uncovered this little lot.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Perhaps I've suddenly come over all cynical (hardly uncharacteristic ) but I can't help thinking this comes down to money and laziness. Police patrols are pricey and time consuming compared to Gatsos which are seen as a cheap and easy solution to the problem. What seems to have largely escaped notice is that it's not much of a solution unless it actually goes some way to fixing the problem. Once again, acheiving road safety on the cheap seems to be more of a priority than acheiving road safety that actually works, and this apparent reluctance to make the info in TRL595 freely available to the public makes me wonder if realisation has in fact dawned and there's a major arse covering exercise going on somewhere.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I think it is arse covering but with deadly consequences. I have looked at the highway agency's summary of trl595 and S.S.s table 3.18 from the same document. Whoever came up with that summary is in my opinion guilty of manslaughter.

I read the text in the 595 report last night and it seems that the report concluded the unusual findings and then spent as much space again explaining them away with no real evidence to support the findings. For example it says that cameras might have been put on works where the danger was thought to be high but considering the highly interesting results it doesn't actually investigate this nor attempt to compare similar works layouts with and without cameras.

Gareth

I seem to remember that 2 motorway workers were killed earlier this year when a women went into the back of their van as they were putting cones out. This happened on the M6 somewhere near Wigan I think.

Russ

Quite - and look how the findings were distorted in the executive summary. And look at how the terrible results from fixed speed cameras weren't calculated out. And look at how we had to pay £40 just to read it. And look at how we had to use FoI just to find out that it existed...

All in all, it stinks.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety