No Vote 'Kills Off' Road Use Charges

A RESOUNDING vote against plans for Britain's biggest road charging zone could discourage similar schemes in North Staffordshire and South Cheshire.

Residents in Greater Manchester opted to reject the proposals by two to one yesterday in a referendum.

Under the scheme, which would have covered about 80 square miles corresponding to the area within the M60 orbital motorway, drivers could have been paying up to £5 a day – or £1,200 a year – to use the region's roads.

Local councils wanted the charges to help pay for £2.7 billion of investment in trains, trams and buses, promising a revolution in public transport.

Business leaders and drivers' representatives in North Staffordshire and South Cheshire have welcomed the vote, which many hope will put other local authorities off considering congestion charges.
Click here!

Paul Biggs, Staffordshire representative for the Association of British Drivers, said: "I think this will probably kill off any chance of a congestion charge appearing anywhere else in the country.

"It's very good news for drivers. We already pay around £50 billion to use the roads and we don't want to have to pay twice."

The Sentinel: No vote 'kills off' road use charges

Central Birmingham Car Trips Down by a Third

The number of people entering Birmingham city centre by car in the morning peak has fallen by 32% since 1995 according to the latest monitoring data.

Whereas 62,122 people crossed the ring road inbound by car, van and goods vehicle during the morning peak (07.30-09.30) in 1995, the figure had dropped to 42,372 by 2007. The fall appears to be the result of both fewer people overall entering the city centre and a rise in public transport use, particularly rail.

Chris Haynes, Birmingham’s head of transportation strategy, said any attempt to attribute the decline in car trips was a bit of a “guesstimate” but he identified three factors: the success of rail and particularly park-and-ride; the decline in manufacturing jobs within the ring road; and the recent increase in the city centre’s residential population. He added that 24-hour counts showed a fall in road traffic throughout the day. The pattern in Birmingham was not that dissimilar to other core cities, he added.

The overall number of people entering central Birmingham has fallen from 107,435 in 1995 to 97,192 in 2007. Public transport users have risen from 45,313 to 54,820 and, as a percentage share, public transport now accounts for 56.4% of all trips compared with 42% in 1995.

Rail use has jumped from 13,619 to 22,967; bus use has fallen from 31,694 to 30,268. Midland Metro, which opened in 1999, carried 1,585 in-bound passengers in 2007.

Data from Centro shows that the public transport mode share in other West Midland conurbation towns is much lower than Birmingham: West Bromwich (34.7%), Walsall (34.2%), Wolverhampton (29.5%), Coventry (22.6%), Sutton Coldfield (20.5%), Solihull (19.6%), Dudley (14.4%), Brierley Hill (12.1%).

Overall, Centro reports that the West Midlands has overtaken Tyne and Wear as the conurbation having the highest bus use per head of population. A total of 325.4 million trips were made by bus in 2007/08, little changed from 2006/07.

Centro says this equates to 12.4 million trips per 100,000 population, compared with 12.3 million in Tyne and Wear, 10.9 million on Merseyside, 9 million in West Yorkshire, and 8.8 million in Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire.

Rail patronage across the conurbation has grown by 43% in the last decade. Use of Midland Metro rose last year from 4.9 million passengers to 5 million.

Local Transport Today: Ctl Birmingham car trips down by a third

31 New Electronic Speed Warning Signs for Birmingham

SPEED cameras in Birmingham could be on the way out after city transport bosses announced the rolling out of 31 new warning signs in a bid to improve road safety.

The move marks a step change in policy as, instead of the ‘flash and fine’ cameras, motorists will now see more speed activated Slow Down warning signs at the roadside to shame them into hitting the brakes.

Those electronic warning signs already installed, such on Aldridge Road in Perry Barr, have proved such a success in slowing traffic that Birmingham City Council is investing £180,000 in putting in more signs in the next few weeks.

Birmingham Mail: Birmingham transport bosses will put 31 new electronic speed warning signs across roads in the city

Seeing Through SPECS

The speed camera is once again being sold as a magic answer to road safety, reincarnated as SPECS average speed cameras. SPECS cameras were installed on 32 miles of the A77 in July 2005. 3 years later we have the familiar 'before' and 'after' claims. 3 years prior to installation there were 13 deaths and 52 serious injuries, 3 years after installation the figures dropped to 7 and 34 respectively. The total number of accidents fell 19%, average speeds have fallen by 5to 6mph, and the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit fell by 66%.

Accompanying camera installation were a number of significant safety engineering measures including: selective road widening and re-alignment, passing lanes, improved junction layouts, improved signing and lining, and educational programmes.

Now, which measures will get the credit for casualty reduction? Cameras or engineering/education?

Geoff Hoon, Sunday Times 9th November 2008:

In an interview with The Sunday Times he indicated that many so-called "spot" cameras, which measure speed at a fixed point, could be replaced by the new average-speed cameras, which he claims are fairer and encourage safer driving.

"Spot speed cameras are seen by some people as unfair because when you are driving along you perhaps don't notice your speed," Hoon said.

"What is interesting about average-speed cameras is that [limits] are largely observed by motorists."

Geoff Hoon, BBC Breakfast with Frost, 02/02/2003:

GEOFF HOON: It is absolutely clear that we must remove the weapons of mass destruction from control by Saddam Hussein - that is our primary purpose. Those weapons of mass destruction present a real threat, not only as we've seen in appalling circumstances to the people of Iraq and surrounding regions used in Iraq's invasion of Iran, but also to the safety and security of the world. As the Prime Minister has said, we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, we equally know that if he goes on with their possession they could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and be a direct threat on the streets of London, anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Fatal Crash at Speed Camera Site, Birmingham A452

Birmingham Evening Mail, 31 October 2008: Teenager Dies in Chester Road smash

Birmingham Parking Policy Consultation

Birmingham City Council is developing a new Parking Policy. Over time, the Council has developed a number of separate policies to deal with parking. This strategy is intended to bring together and update existing elements of the City Council’s Parking Policies including the Unitary Development Plan and Visions, together with recent changes in national legislation, so as to be a comprehensive approach to managing on street and off street parking, provision, control and enforcement.

The parking policy will provide the policy framework for effective parking management, which is supportive of the City Council’s strategic objectives for integrated land use and transport planning, environment, social inclusion, economic prosperity and regeneration: all important elements of sustainable development.

The policy document deals with:

Parking for people with mobility difficulties, including the Blue Badge scheme
Non-car modes such as cycles, powered two-wheel vehicles, buses, coaches, taxis and lorries
On street parking supply and charges
Off street parking supply and charges
Park & Ride
Enforcement
Supporting Measures such as Travelwise and Car Clubs

In addition, the document includes the city's draft parking standards which will be used for planning purposes in determining the appropriate level of car parking provision in new developments. These will become part of the City's Local Development Framework and will be consulted on formally in 2009.


There's a short online questionnaire here.

or fill it in and post it to:

Parking Policy Consultation
Transportation Strategy & Development
Birmingham City Council
FREEPOST NEA 14876
PO BOX 37
Birmingham
B4 7BR

Consultation will close on 31 December 2008.

New Device Reduces Need for Motorway Closures

Professor Peter Haycock and Dr Matthew Hocking have invented a device which detects rusted metal in concrete supports under motorways and bridges.

It will allow construction firms to scan concrete for evidence of corrosion, without having to close the road for inspection.

Dr Hocking said: "I have spent many hours sitting on the M6 over the years, so I would be pleased if we helped to do something about it.

"The machine can tell the amount of rust in steel, therefore we can scan over an area without having to take the concrete off and have an idea about the condition of the steel underneath.

The technology is ideal for planning projects that would have meant stopping the traffic on the motorway."

Dr Hocking and Prof Haycock, founders of Keele-based SciSite, first developed the technology for the EMAD – an Electro-Magnetic Anomaly Detector – 12 years ago.

It was first used to check for rust on wheels.

But they started researching its use with reinforced concrete five years ago, and are now ready to launch a version of the machine for the construction industry.
EMAD uses a probe on a trolley which is held up to concrete posts and reveals corrosion levels.

And SciSite says technology currently used does not accurately document the amount of corrosion which can leave roads closed for days because concrete supports have to be opened up for investigation.

The company, which is based on Keele Science Park, is currently seeking investment to build dozens of the machines to lease them out.

The Sentinel: 'New device means no jams tomorrow'

Staffordshire Traffic Police Numbers Drop 83.7% in 10 Years!

Despite the failure of Staffordshire's 260 plus speed cameras to have any impact on the county's road fatality trends, as demonstrated above (click on graph for a larger view), 94% of the £2.4 million road safety grant is being spent on maintaining speed cameras. The effect of the speed camera programme on the number of traffic police has been devastating: in 1998-9 there were 208, down to just 34 for 2007-8 - a staggering fall of 83.7%. Speed cameras don't catch drunk or other illegal, dangerous drivers - only police patrols can. Staffordshire police admit the fall is due to speed cameras and ANPR, but cliam that ordinary police patrol officers are trained to deal with traffic offences. Not so. Traffic police were the elite officers for detecting vehicle offences and can't be adequately replaced by ordinary patrols.

Trafpol numbers in other areas: 1998/9, 2007/8, % fall

North Wales: 236, 90, 61.9%

Cheshire: 205, 94, 54.1%

West Mercia: 238, 128, 46.2%

Surrey: 177, 98, 44.6%

West Midlands 405, 352

Figures from Auto Express and Express & Star:

Fears over lack of traffic police

Swindon Council Scraps Fixed Speed Cameras

Swindon Councillors have voted to withdraw the £320,000 funding for fixed speed cameras and spend the money on genuine safety measures. Road deaths in Swindon went up last year. Peter Greenhalgh, the Tory councillor who proposed the idea, told BBC Radio 5 Live the current road safety policy was not working, "The Department for Transport annual results - published on the 25th of September - show that, nationally, only 6% of accidents are caused by people breaking speed limits and yet almost 100% of the government's road safety money is being invested in speed cameras," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7685550.stm

See ABD Mercia's detailed examination of speed camera statistics:

http://abdmercia.blogspot.com/2008/09/detailed-examination-of-speed-camera.html

and a histogram of road fatalities in Staffordshire 1992 to 2006:

http://abdmercia.blogspot.com/2008/09/staffordshire-road-fatalities-1992-2006.html

Walsall Council are also reviewing their speed camera policy.

Fuel price relief 'is not enough'

BUSINESSES say £1 a litre petrol has given them respite from economic gloom – but believe the price at the pump is still too high.

Unleaded petrol at stations in North Staffordshire dipped below the £1 mark yesterday for the first time this year after months of motoring misery.

But drivers and fuel-reliant businesses say they are still paying too much for fuel because the cost of crude oil has almost halved from a high of $147 (£84) a barrel to a 14-month low around $75 (£43).

Paul Biggs, Staffordshire co-ordinator for the Association of British Drivers, agreed more financial pressure needed to be taken off motorists.

He said: "It is great news to finally see the prices come down again.

"The cost of oil has almost halved, so you would expect to see that at the pumps.

"It seems like the prices went up very quickly as the price of oil rose, but they are not so fast to put the prices down.

"I still think we are paying far too much for fuel. Sixty per cent goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that is too much."

17/10/08

The Sentinel: Fuel price relief 'is not enough'

Caught on Camera - Revenue Raising in Warwickshire

Photographs and comments from Keith:

The white 08 registered Vauxhall Movano has no visible markings on the front to indicate that it is a police vehicle, the sides have some silver reflective stripes and the rear doors have yellow and red markings around the heavily tinted rear windows.

No where on the vehicle are the camera warning signs that have been a feature of the Ford Transit talivans used by Warwickshire previously and which feature on virtually every other area's talivans.

To the majority of motorists this new van could pass for a road contractor's vehicle. The new van has been seen lurking in Merevale Lane Grendon near Atherstone, the B4116, in a little used farm gateway just downhill from Merevale Church. The road is very rural and has a 50 mph speed limit for 75% of its length. The tally van has been positioned right at the end of the 50 mph limit to trap motorists who speed up early to the current 60 mph limits where their speed increase is assisted by the downhill nature of this section of road.

The talivan has been spotted here around 4.30 pm on Thursday October 16th 2008 ready to trap people returning from work.

With hardly any residents, excellent visibility and pedestrians a rarity on this section it is difficult to see how placing this speed trap here can be described as a safety measure.

The cynical omission off the usual talivan markings, the cessation of Warwickshire County Council publishing the daily movements of its talivans on its website combined with the imminent imposition of a 50 mph speed limit on virtually every rural road in Warwickshire says all we need to know about the true purpose of the safety camera partnership which is to raise as much revenue as possible whilst depriving otherwise law abiding hard working citizens.

Another comment from an ABD member:

I saw that there a week or so ago, it is one of my alternative routes to work, I wasn't even sure it was a Talivan, it looked as though it could just as easily have been a maintenance van working at the church.

Stupid limit anyway. The only hazard is the hill crest and then only if you are travelling towards the A5, yet 3/4 of the whole road has a 50 limit.

And don't get me started on the idiotic pheasant warning signs!

'Greens' Claim Birmingham's HOV Lane Set Up to Fail

BBC Midlands evening news, October 7th: There was a report about the 'Green' Party claiming that the HOV lane trial had been deliberately set up to fail - because the experiment only operates in a morning, and there is no enforcement - only one driver fined so far! Funnily enough, the police just happended to be enforcing it when the BBC were filming! The 'green' spokesman, who literally looked 16 and not old enough to drive, complained that there wasn't enough 'incentive' to car share. No drivers group was invited to opine! Filming showed an empty HOV lane and cars rammed into the right hand lane - another stupid reduction in road capacity!

ABD PR's:

Birmingham`s A47 'Car Share' Lane Criticised (18/11/07)

Birmingham City Council's A47 'Car Share' Lane Duplicity Exposed (25/11/07)

M42 Active Traffic Management Control (ATMC)

Notes from the Forum at Coventry earlier this month that saw the presentation by Highways Agency on Active Traffic Management Control,(ATMC) currently on the M42 but planned for expansion to other motorways, including the M6 and M40. The Main points were:-

1. ATMC is the future according to Highways Agency for reducing congestion on Motorways. It is 20-25% of the cost of widening and can be done much quicker.

2. The aim is to cut congestion and improve reliability of journey times by increased use of the hard shoulder.

3. When hard shoulder is in use currently max speed limit for all lanes is 50, but there are plans to increase it to 60.

4. When hard shoulder is not in use normal rules apply although variable speed limits can be used on the normal running lanes.

5. Whole area is covered by CCTV and gantries are spaced so that one is always visible. Control centre is manned 24/7.

6. Vehicles don't break down as much as they used to, so hard shoulder is not needed so much for breakdowns.

7. Under ATMC Emergency Vehicles don't need a hard shoulder. Any lane can be reserved for emergency vehicles to reach an incident by means of overhead gantry signs closing the lane to all other traffic.

8. Emergency Refuges are placed approx every 500 metres, breakdowns should try to reach one of these refuges. Refuges are usually next to overhead gantries and have a loop to tell control when a vehicle enters them, also a phone and CCTV coverage.

9. These refuges are deep enough away from the hard shoulder to allow work to be carried out on the offside of a vehicle without the need to close the adjacent running lane as is required by health and safety for hard shoulder offside work.

10. Benefits of ATMC on the M42 include- more free running; shorter journey times; better fuel consumption, 50% drop in personal injury accidents (interesting claim that increased average speeds reduce KSI, which conflicts with the usual claim that a 1mph reduction in average speed reduces casualties by 5%); no KSIs as yet during hard shoulder running; reduced CO, PM, CO2, NOx, and Noise levels.

This is a little disingenuous, as the M42 Southbound congestion from around Junction 8 was made much worse following the construction of the M6 Toll, which resulted in the loss of a lane around Junction 7A in order to provide access to the M6 South. ATMC didn't cure this problem - a new lane was recently constructed, which certainly did help a lot.

11. Overall benefit cost ratio is 3.3 to 1

12. Next applications are to the rest of the Birmingham Motorway Box and then spread across the country (sounds like a back door way of reducing the national motorway speed limit to 50 or 60mph).

13. Major problem with certain motorways is where they have already been widened and hard shoulder is not continuous, for example at bridges where decision was taken not to widen the bridge but to eliminate the hard shoulder there. To make best use of ATMC the bridges would need to be widened to give a continuous hard shoulder.

14. Causes of congestion are: 10% road works, 25% accidents, 65% volume. Congestion costs £20 bn pa.

15. HA is keen to talk to road users, especially companies and associations who might be able to put a link to HA live traffic information on their own websites, also to get feeds via RSS, traffic radio, atlas pro, event management, etc.

Contact:

outreach@highways.gsi.gov.uk

www.highways.gov.uk


Thanks to Robert Bolt who attended the forum and made notes.

Specs 3: More Money for Big Brother

It looks as though 'Specs 3' average speed cameras will be rolled out on rural and major urban roads. Drivers' journey details will also be kept for 5 years in yet another sinister 'big brother' policy. Specs will not be targeting accident black spots, but will track drivers and measure the average speed of vehicles over tens of miles. This is in part an admission that drivers brake briefly through Gatso cameras and then speed up again. The national average speed limit reduction through conventional speed camera sites is only 2.2mph, and 1mph in Staffordshire. The belief is that a 1mph reduction in average speed reduces casualties by about 5%, but this has been shown to be statistical manipulation in order to avoid using the scientific '85th percentile' method of setting speed limits.

The Times: Drivers will have no escape from new speed cameras

ABD; TRL 511 - The need for speed reduction

EuroRAP: A453 UK's Most Improved Road for Safety

The A453 from Mile Oak, Tamworth, Staffordshire, to Bassett's Pole roundabout on the A38, has seen a fall in casualties from 1 killed, 7 seriously injured for the period 2001 to 2003, to just 1 serious injury for the period 2004 to 2006. No speed cameras involved in order to claim all the credit, but the provision of pedestrian refuges at Mile Oak so that pedestrians can cross the road to the bus stops, and the reconstruction of the A38 roundabout at Bassett's Pole complete with traffic lights. The police have also clamped down on bikers gathering at Bassett's Pole and the accompanying bike racing on the public road. The unenforced 50 to 40mph speed limit at Mile Oak is incidental, despite the claim from EuroRAP.


EuroRAP say:

"Britain’s most improved road in this year’s analysis by the Road Safety Foundation is the A453 from the A38 to Tamworth in Staffordshire. This rural single carriageway has seen an 88 per cent drop in the number of fatal or serious collisions in the last six years, taking it from a medium risk road to one of the safest. According to the Foundation, this has been achieved by introducing traffic lights, speed limit reductions and village pedestrian facilities."

http://www.eurorap.org/library/pdfs/news/20080627_GB_Results_Release.pdf

EuroRAP

Government Statistics Suggest Speeding Causes 3% of Accidents

Only 3 per cent of car accidents are caused by speeding drivers, Government figures have revealed.

Yet there are nearly 7,000 speed cameras across the country which are unable to detect 'careless or reckless' drivers who cause three times as many accidents.

Critics say the Department for Transport figures demolish the main justification for cameras.

Daily Mail 25/09/08: Speeding drivers cause only 3% of car accidents, figures reveal

Government Speed Camera Claims Halved by Dr Linda Mountain

.....in a country the size of Britain, clusters of accidents are not always caused by dangerous roads or speed. Driver error, weather conditions or simple bad luck can also play a part.

If a camera goes up at one of these fluke sites, and accidents drop, the official statistics will claim that the camera has been successful.

But it is likely that the accident rate would have fallen anyway. The effect, known as 'regression to the mean', is well known to statisticians but not taken into account in camera statistics.

'If accidents fall dramatically after the cameras are in place, it could be that the cameras have reduced accidents, but some of the fall may simply show that a run of bad luck has come to an end,' Dr Mountain told the British Association science festival in Liverpool.

Daily Mail 19/09/02: Speed cameras 'have saved only HALF the lives ministers claim'

See my earlier post suggesting even halving the claims may be far too much:

http://abdmercia.blogspot.com/2008/09/detailed-examination-of-speed-camera.html

Warwickshire Ignores Police Objections to Speed Limit Reductions

Unbelievable but true! Warwickshire Councillors and Officers are ignoring objections by Police experts to a mass of speed limit reductions under the 'Speed Limit Review' - a euphemism for yet more lowered speed limits. Details can be found here:

http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/F446059189B4303A802573C40057A12D

The full horror story is revealed in Local Transport Today, 19th September 2008:



Residents and councillors (road safety amateurs) shouldn't be allowed to overrule the police. 'Average speed' is statistic that has little or nothing to do with 'the safest maximum speed in ideal conditions,' which is the function of a speed limit.

Ther will be a further period of 'consultation' before the reductions are implemented.

A detailed examination of speed camera statistics

There is, of course, no controlled experiment available that would conclusively demonstrate the effectiveness of speed cameras. Such an experiment would require the same road, with the same road users, the same vehicles, the same weather conditions etc, at the same time, both with and without speed cameras. All we have are ‘before’ and ‘after’ figures for casualties.

First, let’s look at the casualty ups and downs on a road prior to the installation of speed cameras. Above are the statistics for Kidsgrove Bank near Stoke, in Staffordshire.

Had we placed speed cameras or garden gnomes along the road in 2003, we could claim that either had reduced casualties from 9 in 2002, to 5 in 2003, and to 4 in 2004 – an impressive 44 per cent reduction close to the starting point of 3 casualties in 1999. This is an example of the long established statistical phenomenon known as ‘Regression to the Mean’ (RTTM) or ‘Bias Selection.’ Clearly, any casualty reduction claim should include a calculation for RTTM. The DfT are aware of RTTM, which is explained in the Road Safety Good Practice Guide:

Regression to the mean

“5.119 This effect, sometimes called bias by selection, complicates evaluations at sites with high accident numbers - blackspot sites, in that these sites have often been chosen following a year with particularly high numbers occurring. In practice their accidents will tend to reduce in the next year even if no treatment is applied. Even if three-year accident totals are considered at the worst accident sites in an area, it is likely that the accident frequencies were at the high end of the naturally occurring random fluctuations, and in subsequent years these sites will experience lower numbers. This is known as regression-to-the-mean.

5.120 In practice it is believed that the regression-to-the-mean effect can over-state the effect of a treatment by 5 to 30 per cent, chiefly dependent on the length of accident period chosen.
Possibly the most straightforward way of allowing for both the regression-to-mean effect and changes in the environment would be to use control sites chosen in exactly the same way as the treated sites, and identified as having similar problems, but left untreated. In practice, as stated earlier, it is both difficult to find matched control sites and, if investigated, to justify not treating them.”

Not until the Four Year Evaluation Report for The National Safety Camera Programme was an attempt made to calculate the effect of RTM. It was published at the end of the report in Appendix H:

The data used to estimate RTTM is listed below:

The information obtained for these sites was as follows:

• Name
• Camera type
• Road class (A-road or other)
• Speed limit
• Date 3-year baseline period ends
• Date after period starts
• Duration of after period
• Baseline traffic flow (million vehicles per year)
• Length of section over which collisions are monitored
• Number of minor junctions within monitored section
• Number of PICs and FSCs in baseline period
• Number of PICs and FSCs in after period

“In the case of fixed cameras, only 4 partnerships were able to provide data and the majority of these cameras (65%) are in one area (Staffordshire).”

“Thus RTTM accounts for about three fifths of the observed reduction in FSCs (Fatal and Serious Collisions) with the effects of the cameras and trend each accounting for a fifth.”

In other words, a claim of a 40 per cent reduction in KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured casualties) by speed cameras is reduced to 8 per cent.

The report concludes:

“RTTM effects were estimated to account for an average fall relative to the observed baseline collisions of 7% in all PICs and of 35% in FSCs. RTTM effects represented one quarter of the observed fall in PICs and three fifths of the observed fall in FSCs.”

Other factors that could reduce the claims for the effectiveness of speed cameras:

Under-reporting and misclassification of serious injury accidents

Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 - Annual Report


“Very few, if any, fatal accidents do not become known to the police. However, research conducted on behalf of the Department in the 1990s has shown that a significant proportion of non-fatal injury accidents are not reported to the police. In addition, some casualties reported to the police are not recorded and the severity of injury tends to be underestimated. The Department is undertaking further research to investigate whether the levels of reporting have changed.”

Changes in safety on England’s roads: analysis of hospital statistics (published 23 June 2006) BMJ:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38883.593831.4Fv1.pdf

Objective: To compare trends in the numbers of people with serious traffic injuries according to police statistics and hospital episode statistics (HES).

Design: Descriptive study based on two independent population based data sources.

Setting: Police statistics and hospital episode statistics in England.

Main outcome: measures Rates of injury and death and their change over time reported in each data source, for 1996 to 2004.

Results: According to police statistics, rates of people killed or seriously injured on the roads fell consistently from 85.9 per 100 000 in 1996 to 59.4 per 100 000 in 2004. Over the same time, however, hospital admission rates for traffic injuries were almost unchanged at 90.0 in 1996 and 91.1 in 2004. Both datasets showed a significant reduction in rates of injury in children aged ≤ 15, but the reduction in hospital admission rates was substantially less than the reduction shown in the police statistics. The definition of serious injury in police statistics includes every hospital admission; in each year, none the less, the number of admissions exceeded the number of injuries reported in the police system.

Conclusions: "The overall fall seen in police statistics for non-fatal road traffic injuries probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of these injuries."

Thus, the KSI figure is misleading as it takes advantage of the under-reporting of serious injuries and masks the less than impressive reductions in fatalities.

Length of Camera Sites and location of casualties relative to the locations of speed cameras, before and after camera installation.

According to DfT guidelines, a fixed camera site can be 400 metres to 1.5 kilometres in length, and a part-time mobile site can be 400 m to 5 Km in length. Also, casualties from adjacent roads to the road where the cameras are sited are sometimes used to justify cameras. The point of this is that cameras can only hope to be effective where they can be seen, and if justifying accidents actually occurred near to the cameras. Siting cameras away from where accidents actually took place and then claiming a reduction would constitute statistical fraud. Furthermore, drivers can’t be expected to slow down for a camera, say 1km distant. In short, the location of accidents before and after camera installation is an important factor in assessing the effectiveness of speed cameras.

Contributory factors in accidents from Police STATS 19 forms

Obviously, for speed cameras to be effective at least some of the justifying accidents must have ‘exceeding the speed limit’ as a contributory factor. The DfT looked at the contributory factors from 147,509 fatal and injury accidents for 2006. ‘Exceeding the speed’ limit contributed (as distinct from 'cause') to 5 per cent of all accidents, and 12 per cent of fatal accidents. The other, unrelated speed factor of ‘excessive speed for the road conditions, UNDER the posted limit’ is an education problem that can’t be tackled by speed cameras. This is a bigger problem than exceeding the speed limit, according the the DfT's categorisation of speed, being a contributory factor in 12 per cent of accidents and 17 per cent of fatal accidents. The DfT 'spin' the figures by adding the two entirely different factors 'exceeding the speed limit' and 'excessive speed for the road conditions' together in order to claim speed 'speed' is a factor in 17% of all accidents (18% for the 2007 casualty figures).

Of course, the STATS 19 forms filled in a the roadside by police officers attending road accident involving injury or death can be subjective, and therefore represent the opinion of officers rather than being the result of an extensive accident investigation. 'Excessive speed for the conditions' isn't an offence in law, unless driver behaviour can be shown to be 'without due care' or 'dangerous.' Speed is only described as excessive if it actually contributes to an accident. Despite the potential flaws in the box ticking system of the STATS 19 forms, these are the only official figures that we have. They don't show exceeding the speed limit as the largest 'contributory factor,' let alone 'cause.' The average number of contributory factors per accident is 2.4. Very rarely is there only one. How does driving above a number on a stick cause accidents, or driving at or below that number prevent accidents? Speed has to be appropriate for the prevailing road conditions, which is often below the speed limit. Many speed limits have been lowered to well below what would objectively be considered to be a sensible maximum in ideal conditions, which is surely the function of a speed limit. Appropriate speed limits achieve the greatest compliance and require the least or no enforcement.

From DfT Contributory factors in accidents 2007:

* Failed to look properly was the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 35 per cent of all accidents. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 33 per cent of fatal accidents.

* Younger and older drivers are more likely to have a contributory factor recorded than drivers aged 25-69. Younger drivers, particularly males, are more likely to have factors related to speed and behaviour, whereas older drivers are more likely to have factors related to vision and judgement.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071


Safety Engineering Measures at Camera Sites

Safety engineering measures accompanying camera installation should be taken into account when assessing camera effectiveness.

Some potential negative effects of speed cameras on road safety

Nationally, in 1998 deaths from drink driving reached an all time low of 460. Between 1996 and 2003 traffic police officer numbers fell by about 30 per cent (written answer to a parliamentary question) , due to officers being replaced by speed cameras. There may well be a connection between increased drink-drive deaths due to less traffic police carrying out less breath tests. By 2004 the number of drink drive deaths had reached 580. In 2006 the figure was around 540. In 2007, the number was back down to 460, presumably contributed to by police patrols being more vigilant where drink-driving is concerned.

Single function speed cameras can’t detect the myriad of driving offences tackled by the traffic police officers that speed cameras replaced.

Other negative effects include the installation of cameras instead of other more appropriate measures, such as engineering or pelican crossings. Distraction from the driving task is another potential problem.

A substantial number of camera sites show either no reduction or an increase in casualties.

The national speed camera programme claims an average 2.2 mph speed reduction at camera sites, compared to Staffordshire’s claim of just a 1mph reduction.

Also, from the DfT Road safety Good Practice Guide:

Other factors to consider

Accident migration

5.124 The existence of accident migration is a fairly controversial issue but has been reported to be a real effect �Mountain et al, 1992; Boyle et al, 1984; Persaud, 1987. It is simply that an increase in accidents tends to be observed at sites adjoining a successfully treated site, giving an apparent transfer or migration of accidents. It is unclear precisely why this effect occurs but is hypothesised that drivers are compensating for the improved safety at treated sites by being less cautious elsewhere.

5.125 Obviously to detect such an occurrence, you need to compare the accident frequencies before and after implementation of a scheme and those for the surrounding area with a suitable control group.

5.126 However, research and practical evidence eg Brindle, 1986; Websterand Mackie, 1996 have demonstrated that local area traffic restraint schemes do not create a significant increase in accidents on surrounding roads. Mountain 1998. has more recently concluded that a more likely explanation for any observed increase is a reverse regression-to-mean effect arising due to bias in the selection of the neighbouring sites.


Factors that reduce death and injury

EuroNCAP claim a 12 per cent reduction in KSI for every safety star awarded for vehicle crash performance. Thus a 5 star vehicle could potentially reduce the chances of being killed or seriously injured by 60 per cent. Better paramedic care and improved treatment for head injuries make a substantial contribution to reducing KSI. Safety engineering an road improvements save lives.

A note about mobile cameras

Mobile Lastec cameras are operated on a variety of roads on a part-time basis, typically half a day. They are often operated between existing fixed cameras, and in transitional zones between speed limits in defiance of the ACPO guidelines for a 200 metre ‘buffer zone’ following a speed limit change, where drivers should not be prosecuted. When a speeding driver sees a camera van, it is probably already too late due to the range at which speed is measured is far greater than that of the more visually obvious fixed cameras. The fact that mobile cameras are only present on a part-time basis and are less obvious means that they are likely less effective than fixed cameras at slowing drivers down, and the claims for casualty reduction are even less likely to be real

Speed cameras INCREASE injury accidents: Safety Performance of Traffic Management at Major Motorway Road Works (Transport Research Laboratories Report TRL 595, 8/5/2005

The Department for Transport (DfT) funded, then suppressed, a study that shows a 55% increase in injury accidents when speed cameras are used on motorway work zones and a 31% increase when used on motorways without construction projects. According to the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), the "non-works [personal injury accident] rate is significantly higher for the sites with speed cameras than the rate for sites without."

Analysis of this data, on 43 of the report, Effect on Personal Injury Accidents:

Enforcement Type, Construction Zone, No Construction

Conventional speed cameras, 55% increase, 31% increase
Speed-averaging cameras (SPECS), 4.5% increase, 6.7% increase
Police patrols, 27% reduction, 10% reduction

The TRL study compared accident reports covering 29 motorway construction zone projects over 730km of road from November 2001 to July 2003 with an equivalent period without the construction zones, controlling for changes in traffic volume. The taxpayer funded report was never made public and was revealed by a FOIA request. The report demonstrates that police patrols reduce injury accidents, whereas Gatso type cameras in particular increase injury accidents.

A pdf of the report can be found here:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-trl595.pdf

Vehicle Activated Signs versus Speed Cameras

In 2003 the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) carried out a study on Vehicle Activated Signs under contract to the Road Safety Division of the Department for Transport. Speed cameras were claimed to reduce accidents by 14%, but the study suggested that electronic speed limit reminders reduced accidents by 58% and electronic bend & junction warning signs reduced accidents by 26%. The TRL study was the largest of its kind ever conducted, examining the effects of four different electronic warning signs at over 60 locations, and measuring the impact on accident rates over a three year period.

The report concluded that electronic warning signs achieve substantial accident reductions, can operate at thresholds well below speed cameras, remain effective for years and have much lower operating costs than cameras.

TRL Report 548 entitled: 'Vehicle-activated signs - a large scale evaluation' can be downloaded here:

http://www.trl.co.uk/store/report_detail.asp?srid=2699&pid=211

TRL 548: "There is an established, positive relationship between vehicle speeds and road accidents. On rural roads, driving too fast for the conditions is more likely to be a factor in accidents than exceeding the speed limit. Encouraging drivers to drive at suitable speeds for the conditions is particularly important, since driver error is the major contributory factor in 95 per cent of accidents. A range of rural road safety engineering measures, in particular vehicle-activated signing, has been developed to encourage drivers to approach hazards such as bends and junctions at a safe speed, and to encourage them to comply with the speed limit, eg through villages. The signs display a message relating to road conditions such as these to just those drivers exceeding a set threshold speed. A study of the effectiveness of over 60 installations on rural roads in Norfolk, Kent, West Sussex and Wiltshire has been conducted by TRL for the Department for Transport (DfT). The trial aimed to assess the effect of the signs on speed and injury accidents, and drivers' understanding of the signs. The results will be used to develop best practice for sign installation. The signs appear to be very effective in reducing speeds, particularly those of the faster drivers who contribute disproportionately to the accident risk, without the need for enforcement such as safety cameras. In this study, a substantial accident reduction has been demonstrated."

Of course, many of the criticisms of speed camera statistics can also be levelled at the casualty reduction claims for vehicle activated signs (VAS). Nevertheless, there is no apparent reason for choosing speed cameras over VAS other than the fact that cameras can raise money and prosecute drivers, whereas VAS can't.

Overall Conclusions:

Prior to the introduction of speed cameras on UK roads in the mid-1990s, there had been decades of an impressive trend of falling fatalities, despite rising vehicle numbers and road use. If the ‘speed kills’ mantra and the focus on speed as the main cause of accidents were the correct focus, we would have hoped to continue the trend in the speed camera era. Sadly, the trend has levelled off despite speed cameras.

So, have speed cameras made Staffordshire’s roads safer above the benefits we would expect from better engineered cars and roads, plus improved medical care? Given that cameras are supposed to have been placed in accident black spots, it is not unreasonable to expect to see a significant reduction in the overall number of fatalities on Staffordshire’s roads. No reduction in the fatalities trend has taken place:

http://abdmercia.blogspot.com/2008/09/staffordshire-road-fatalities-1992-2006.html

As previously shown, figures for serious injury accidents have long been suspect and therefore fatalities are the only reliable statistics that we have. Furthermore, speed cameras can only fine traceable drivers, the potentially most dangerous, illegal drivers escape detection and prosecution. Every £40,000 spent on a speed cameras would fund an extra police officer. There has been a decline of 20% in the number of traffic police in England and Wales over the last decade. There are now 1,507 fewer patrolling the roads. Bad news for road safety, good news for dangerous and illegal drivers. My message is clear and well illustrated in this article - the claimed casualty reductions by speed cameras are a 'benefit illusion' derived from creative and demonstrably flawed statistics. The removal of all speed cameras (except at sites where it can be conclusively demonstrated that there is definite link between exceeding a sensible speed limit and accident causation, and there is no other or engineering measure that would rectify the situation) would be a positive move for road safety. Vehicle Activated Signs (TRL Report 548) are a cheaper alternative to speed cameras, although they don't have the potential to raise revenue.

The government finally ended the funding method that encouraged speed camera proliferation in April 2007 - camera partnerships are no longer allowed to keep the money from camera fines, which now goes direct to the treasury. Instead, a 'road safety grant' is given to each council in order to encourage appropriate road safety measures, thus re-affirming the often ignored guideline that cameras are only to be used as a 'last resort.' Councils now lumbered with the huge expense of maintaining fixed speed cameras are likely to consider removing cameras in favour of more cost effective road safety measures. Swindon are the first council to scrap fixed speed cameras, other councils may well follow suit, potentially heralding a new era in road safety where the remedy actually fits the problem. If inspiration is required, we can look to Britain's most improved road for safety, the A453, where a claimed 88% reduction in KSI has been achieved without speed cameras. Of course, had the measures taken on the A453 been accompanied by the installation of fixed speed cameras, then they would have unjustifiably taken much of the credit.

Driving is about risk management. The less hazards there are along a length of road, the faster vehicles tend to travel. This was borne out by TRL 511, where, to their horror, the authors found the rural roads with the fastest speeds were the safest - the opposite of what they were looking for - so they had to use creative statistics to reverse the findings, breaking a TRL 'rule' in the process i.e. they studied roads with very different traffic flows together, which is against the advice of Walmsley and Summersgill, 1998.

Read more about the report TRL 511, which is a fatally flawed attempt to claim that 'a 1mph reduction in average speed reduces casualties by about 5%,' here:

http://www.abd.org.uk/trl511.htm

So, as risk managers, drivers drive more slowly where prevailing road conditions increase the potential number of hazards. Road safety has to work on the basis that drivers don't want to kill or injure themselves or other road users, or be banned from driving, or fined, or go to prison. Nor should drivers expect to be fined by speed cameras for driving safely.

Staffordshire Road Fatalities 1992 - 2006

A picture is worth a thousand words. Given the fact that speed cameras should be placed in accident blackspots, surely we would expect a positive impact of road fatalities in Staffordshire as a whole if cameras 'work.' Speed cameras were introduced in the mid-1990s and Staffordshire 'Casualty Reduction Partnership' was formed in 2001. Can anyone see a downward trend in road fatalities?