Topic: National Safety Camera Campaign - 4 year report

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

In 2000, a system was introduced that allowed eight pilot areas to recover the costs of operating speed and red-light cameras (safety cameras) from fines resulting from enforcement. In 2001, legislation was introduced that allowed the system to be extended to other areas. A national programme was then gradually introduced.

In June 2004, the Department for Transport (DfT) published a research report 1 that analysed the effectiveness of the system in 24 areas over the first three years. This report updates the analysis to the 38 areas that were operating within the programme over the four year period from April 2000 to March 2004. Only areas operating within the programme for at least a year were included in the analysis. High level results are as follows:

    * Vehicle speeds were down - surveys showed that vehicle speeds at speed camera sites had dropped by around 6% following the introduction of cameras. At new sites, there was a 31% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. At fixed sites, there was a 70% reduction and at mobile sites there was a 18% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (i.e. 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 91% at fixed camera sites, and 36% at mobile camera sites.

    * Both casualties and deaths were down - after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean) there was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites after cameras were introduced. Overall 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (32% fewer). There were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004. There was an association between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs.

    * There was a positive cost-benefit of around 2.7:1. In the fourth year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £258million compared to enforcement costs of around £96million.

    * The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level.

Overall, this report concludes that safety cameras have continued to reduce collisions, casualties and deaths.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610815.hcsp

[Millsee]

Overall, this report concludes that safety cameras have continued to reduce collisions, casualties and deaths.

 

Overall, the summary of this report has ignored regression to the mean effects. The main report concludes that RTTM accounts for around 4/5 of any claimed reductions in accidents at speed camera sites.

What does this report say about the amendments to HEN1 and STATS20 reporting of fatalities?

[Millsee]

source

Almost half of Lincolnshire's speed cameras are failing to prevent deaths and injuries on so-called accident black-spots.

Twenty out of 51 speed camera sites around the county have seen no drop in the number of accidents or casualties, an Echo investigation has revealed.

And at eight sites they have even gone up - leading to claims their effectiveness is limited, or even non-existent.

RAC spokesman Paul Hodgson claimed roadside cameras have limited effect.

"You have to ask generally whether the cameras change bad driving behaviour and our view is that they don't," he said.

"You quite often see the car in front with its brake lights on as it slows when passing the speed camera, then it will quickly accelerate again.

"There are many more kinds of dangerous driving such as stupid overtaking, tailgating and using a mobile phone while at the wheel which the cameras don't pick up."

Figures collected by Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership compare accident rates three years before cameras were installed with accident rates in the years immediately after.

They show that, in eight locations, both the number of accidents and the number of people killed or injured has risen. At 14 sites death and casualty figures have gone up, even where the actual number of accidents has gone down or remained static.

On the A1 at Colsterworth, collisions rose from five to 25 after the camera was installed. The number of people killed went from one to three.

But Joanna Smith, of the road safety partnership, said the statistics can be misleading.

"In general the collisions that have occurred at camera sites in Lincolnshire since they were installed have not been speed-related," she said. "Throughout the county 76 per cent of fixed camera sites have seen a decrease in collisions."

Speed cameras cost £35,000 each and cost £5,000 to install. Police spend £750,322 on financing the cameras while highways authorities - Lincolnshire County Council and the Highways Agency - spend £378,903 and magistrates courts pay £95,782 to process the crime.

Stan McMillan, former chairman of the Lincolnshire group of the Royal Society of the Prevention of Accidents' advanced driver scheme, said: "The answer to these problems lies with educating people about how to use the road."

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

source
Almost half of Lincolnshire's speed cameras are failing to prevent deaths and injuries on so-called accident black-spots.

That's a beautiful bit of journalistic spin isn't it.  Surely it would have been less misleading to write:

"Deaths and injuries have fallen at most of Lincolnshire's accident black spots where speed cameras have been installed."

[Millsee]

That's a beautiful bit of journalistic spin isn't it.  Surely it would have been less misleading to write:

"Deaths and injuries have fallen at most of Lincolnshire's accident black spots where speed cameras have been installed."

You might even write:

"Deaths and Serious Injuries are increasing at many of Lincolnshire's speed camera sites."

although as the Pratnership manager tells us:

statistics can be misleading.

I wonder if that is a DfT approved quote?