Transcript No Slide Title

Speed Cameras
Cost-Effective Road Accident Reduction
or
Expensive and Dangerous Confidence Trick?
Are Camera Benefit Claims Credible –
Or are they pernicious nonsense?
Idris Francis B.Sc.
[email protected]
01730 829 416 07717 222 459
May 2013
All data in this presentation and on the Fight Back With Facts web
site comes from official sources unless otherwise stated
The only errors, as identified, are believed to be those made by the
various authorities. If other errors come to light they will be
corrected immediately - not ignored or brushed off as the
authorities have done for years.
The analysis comparing casualty trend at speed camera sites with
elsewhere does not rely on statistical theories, computer or
mathematical models or data cherry-picked to arrive at predetermined conclusions but is simply a record of when and where
accidents have happened on our roads.
Please put to one side any views you might already have on the
effectiveness and cost effectiveness of speed cameras, and assess
the evidence with open minds.
“Take no one’s word”
Motto of the Royal Society.
In other words, do not necessarily believe what anyone tells you,
whatever their reputation, status or position.
Even the best are mistaken from time to time, even supposed
experts can be biased or unwilling to admit to error.
We need more than ever people prepared to stand up and object
when we see that the Emperor has no clothes.
“I usually assume that anything written by a civil
servant will be correct”
e-mail comment in 2012 by Professsor Allsop in an email to
critics of his RAC report claiming camera benefits.
Wrong! This is why so many reports turn out to be whitewash,
merely repeating and taking as read what went before. If you
assume that what you see is correct, why review it at all?
In my considerable experience of road safety issues, civil servants
and other public employees are too often not only wrong, but
prepared to go to any lengths to avoid admitting that they are
wrong.
The only safe assumption for an reviewer is that everything is
wrong unless and until proven otherwise.
“Lacking any analytical ability of my own, I assess
papers on the basis of the CV’s of their authors”
Robert Gifford of PACTS, to the late Paul Smith of Safe
Speed, circa 2007.
The question here must be why someone unable to understand
the subject is employed to pontificate on it in public.
Also known as “The Halo Effect”, as in show-jumping,
aerobatics and any other compsetitions where judging is
subjective rather than objective.
Also known as “Judging a book by its cover”, which is why so
much so utter twaddle becomes perceived opinion and why so
many “celebrities” are on our screens pontificating on things
they know nothing about.
"There are those who don't know, and those who don't
know that they don't know"
The economist J.K. Galbraith, about forecasters who know
so little of their subject that they don't even know how little
they know. They are not alone.
“Measure what is important, not what is easy to
measure”
American Defence Secretary Robert McNamara in an urgent
message to the US Air Force during the Vietnam war.
He should have told our Department of Transport!
When (relatively) low cost electronics, radar and computers
made speed measurement and penalties easy, the authorities
elevated speeding – a relatively minor cause of accidents – to top
priority and even more so when they devised a way of making
drivers, not police budgets, pay for it.
"Cognitive dissonance“
Psychologists' term for the way that people refuse to accept
cleasr evidence that conflicts with their beliefs or hopes.
"My mind is made up, please do not confuse me with the
facts"
The usual response of politicians, civil servants and other
public employees when confronted with clear evidence that
they are wrong. Particularly prevalent in the DfT and Camera
Partnerships, Brake and other true believers in “Speed Kills!”
– though more as a religion than science.
"The Ronan Point syndrome“
as above, after the architect of that tower block (later
demolished) who faced TV cameras with one foot on a pile of
rubble to declare the building to be "perfectly safe".
"I cannot envisage a scenario where the publication of
an annual report can cause a breach of a statutory duty
of care“
Detective Inspector S Miller, Humberside Police, 1st June 2012 in
rejecting my complaint against Safer Roads Humber.
I have on some six occasions filed formal complaints with
different police forces about misconduct in public office and
related offences. Not one of those forces challenged the
documented evidence I provided, instead they have simply
refused to do anything about it.
Perjury Act 1911 (c.6) Main body
5. False statutory declarations and other false statements
without oath.
If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than
on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and the
statement is made—
(a) in a statutory declaration; or ……in an abstract,
account, balance sheet, book, certificate, declaration, entry,
estimate, inventory, notice, report, return, or other
document which he is authorised or required to make,
attest, or verify ……he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour
and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to
imprisonment…for any term not exceeding two years, or to
a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.
"When the impossible has been eliminated what
remains must be the answer.“
Sherlock Holmes
In this context the same applies:
As it is not remotely possible for speed cameras to bring about
the observed reduction in casualties, other factors must be
responsible. Our task is to identify the real reasons accident
numbers fall, and then quantify them to establish what, if
anything, remains for which cameras could be reasonably be
credited. And then to look at relative cost-effectiveness of
cameras compared to other measures.
“Remember, boys, when you have worked out the
answer, you must always ask yourself –
Does it make sense?”
One of the most important lessons I ever learned, in 1954, but
sadly unknown to many these days, it seems.
So should we believe what the authorities and others with
vested interests tell us about speed camera benefits?
You be the judge once you have seen the real evidence.
And the point of the last 6 slides?
That to see clearly you need a great deal of data, not a few
statistically meaningless numbers which might well be
misleading.
For example – Professor Allsop’s recent report for the RAC
analyses 150 sites that received cameras.
My analysis, soon to be published, covers well in excess of
100,000 sites that would have qualified for cameras – would you
care to guess who sees the evidence most clearly?
But before we get serious - and this is a very serious subject - let's
start with a little joke.
A joke at the expense of the DfT, but a joke of some significance
in that it show how little confidence we can have in the DfT,
politicians and the media:
T
Written Answers - Transport: Motor Vehicles:
Lighting (25 Feb 2008)
Jim Fitzpatrick: Research undertaken for the Department for
Transport indicated that the requirement for new types of
motor vehicle to be equipped with dedicated daytime running
lamps would result in an increase of about 5 per cent in fuel
consumption.
Hansard
That this was self-evident nonsense escaped the notice of the
national Press who reported it verbatim. I e-mailed the Minister to
point out that the figure could not possibly be correct and received
the following reply three days later:
03 MAR 2008
Dear Mr. Francis
Thank you for your e-mail on the 26 February 2008 commenting on my
answer to a parliamentary question on the estimated increase in fuel
consumption due to the installation of daytime running lights.
You were correct to question the estimated increase in fuel consumption.
The figure given in the answer was mistyped and should have read
"about 0.5 per cent and not "about 5 per cent". I can only apologise
for this mistake which was due to an administrative error.
The figure of 0.5 per cent assumes two dedicated daytime running
lamps rated at 21 watts each are fitted and is intended to give a broad
indication of the likely increase.
It also assumes that dedicated daytime running tamps are fitted with
filament bulbs. Some vehicle manufacturers use LEDs for certain
lighting functions which consume much less power. Over time LED
powered daytime running lights will become more common helping to
reduce the predicted increase in fuel consumption.
JIM FITZPATRICK
But now for something a great deal more serious - how
much or how little the Transport Select Committee
(Transcom) understand about speed cameras, simple
arithmetic or indeed plain common sense.
To be fair perhaps, we should recognise that the then
Chairman of Transcom Gwyneth Dunwoody MP, often
referred to herself as “a bear of little brain” – our mistake
was to take more notice of her other statements than that
one.
Transcom’s Select Committee’s view of speed cameras:
117. We questioned the Department about which measures were more
effective and more cost-effective than speed cameras .................
the 20 mph zone and the speed-activated sign had achieved greater
casualty reduction than the camera (8.1 and 3.1 per year respectively,
compared to 2.2). In terms of the value for money, however, the speed
camera was shown to be the most cost-effective (the first year rate of
return was 12 times the cost, compared to 0.8 and 10.6 respectively).
118. Well-placed cameras bring tremendous safety benefits at
excellent cost-benefit ratios. A more cost effective measure for
reducing speeds and casualties has yet to be introduced. An
increase in safety camera coverage would be supported by evidence, as
well as public opinion.
Report Oct 2006
Utter tripe, of course, as we will see:
The extraordinary figures the DfT gave Transcom for 1st year costs:Camera
Sign
1st Year Costs
£7,500 £14,000
Casualty Reduction
2.2
3.1
Value each casualty £41,240 £48,100
1st Year Return
12.6 / 1 10.6 / 1
It being inconceivable that a camera (a far more complex device
with an expensive downstream penalty system) could cost only
half as much as a sign I complained to the DfT and Transcom that
the comparison was nonsense.
When both denied in writing that the figures were misleading I
obtained more information using FoI and forced then Minister
Stephen Ladyman to admit to Transcom that the numbers were
indeed wildly wrong. His letter to Transcom admitting that serious
errors is at www.fightbackwithfacts.com/wp-content/uploads
/2012/03/F.34-Ladyman-to-Cttee.pdf
Show Ladyman's letter
admitting that these figures were
wildly wrong
Here are the figures after (only) those two corrections:1st Year Costs
Casualty Reduction
Value each
1st Year Return
Camera
£39,500
2.2
£41,240
2.3 / 1
Sign
£7,000
3.1
£48,100
21.3 / 1
Then, having admitted that signs were 9 times more cost
effective than cameras they ignored it and continued to call for
more cameras! I therefore commissioned an independent
Accountant’s Report, and sent copies of it in 2007 to every Police
Force and Partnership in the country. They too ignored it, even
though when all the DfT’s errors had been corrected the
advantage of signs over cameras was more like 50 to 1.
The Accountants’ Report is at
http://www.fightbackwithfacts.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/F.42-Accountants-Report.pdf
The Final Summary of an independent Report stated that:
1. The costs of cameras and VAS’s as quoted by Dr Ladyman MP and
Mrs Dunwoody MP were so inaccurate as to be either
deliberately misleading or incompetent.
2. The safety justifications are too unreliable and vague to
support the much more expensive option . Both methods slow
down cars to a broadly similar extent.
3. It is clear from the financial data and supported by
government correspondence, that the real reason for erecting so
many cameras (as opposed to VASs) is the financial gain to be
made from speeding penalties, not safety .
4. It is clear that for any given budget, it is more advantageous
to use VASs than safety cameras to control excessive speed ,
whether by achieving the same results for less money or better
results for the same money.
Before looking at detail at what has happened in the speed
camera eras we need to understand the background – what
happened to road casualty numbers and trends since WW2,
long before speed cameras were invented (originally by Mr.
Gatsonides,
a racing driver, for checking lap times, not for road policing
purposes. He became very wealthy at much the same time as
millions of safe drivers became poorer.)
Deaths Each Day in Britain (approximate)
All Causes...........................................................1,800
Avoidable Hospital Deaths (infection, medical
errors, neglect etc. ...............................................200
Suicides....................................................................10
Falls at home.............................................................7
Road Deaths, all kinds ..............................................6
As above, involving speeding ...................................1
Primarily caused by speeding...................................0.5
As above, on the 2% of roads with cameras ...........0.05 (0.003%)
Might a visitor from another planet wonder why we are spending £100m
a year trying to reduce 0.003% of deaths in this country, when the same
money could save vastly more lives spent in other more cost-effective
ways? Like mops, buckets and disinfectant? When being in a hospital bed
is several hundred times per hour, more likely to result in accidental
death than being in a car at 70mph on a motorway ?
DfT Table RAS50007 2011
Contributory factor
Road environment contributed
Vehicle defects
Injudicious action
Exceeding speed limit
Travelling too fast for conditions
Driver/rider error or reaction
Poor turn or manoeuvre
Failed to look properly
Failed to judge path or speed
Swerved
Impairment or distraction
Impaired by alcohol
Behaviour or inexperience
Careless, reckless or in
Pedestrian only
Total number
Killed
No
158
55
498
242
226
1,185
202
433
200
116
426
166
467
285
302
1,752
Seriously injured
%
No
%
9
3
28
14
13
68
12
25
11
34
24
9
27
16
17
100
2,409 12
450
2
4,604 23
1,378
7
1,759
9
13,395 66
2,842 14
6,882 34
3,186 16
4,190 21
3,152 15
1,386
7
5,247 26
3,533 17
3,779 19
20,396 100
GB FALLING FATALITY TREND
8000
Casualties
7000
GB Fatalities
Hypothecation Scheme
6000
5000
Speed Cameras
Heath 3-day
week
Lamont/Clarke/Brown Boom
4000
3000
ERM Bust
2000
1000
0
1970
World Bust
Years
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
GB FALLING FATALITY and SI TRENDS
8000
Casualties
7000
ERM Bust
Hypothecation Scheme
6000
Speed Cameras
Heath 3-day
week
5000
GB Fatalities
4000
3000
It made no sense that the ratio between K and SI
became worse from 1993 when active and passive
vehicle safety were improving rapidly.
2000
In 2006 the BMJ pointed out that serious road injuries
involving more than one day in hospital were not
1000 falling at all, and that the fall seen here was due to
falling reporting levels alone. In 2008 Transcom
agreed, saying they no longer believed SI numbers
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
World Bust
Years
2000
2005
2010
GB FALLING FATALITY TRENDS
8000
Casualties
7000
ERM Bust
6000
Hypothecation Scheme
Speed Cameras
GB Fatalities
3 day
week
5000
4000
3000
Did motoring become more dangerous from WW2
until the late 1960's as this graph suggests?
Worst trend
2000
1000
0
1950
World Bust
Years
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
UK Fatalitie s pe r 100bn ve h km, Lo g
8000
Cas ualtie s
Vehicle km
GB Fatalities
7000
ERM Bust
6000
Hypothecation Scheme
Speed Cameras
3 day
week
5000
Far from it! Relative
to traffic fatalities
fell steadily
3000 throughout
4000
Worst trend
2000
Fatalies relative to Vehicle km
in 2011 93% lower than in 1950.
Relative to occupant km (which fell
as more vehicles became available)
perhaps 88% lower
1000
0
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
World Bust
Ye ars
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
UK Fatalitie s pe r 100bn ve h km, Lo g
10000
Cas ualtie s
Bas e d o n mo to r ve hic le traffic . Gro w th o f all traffic has be e n hig he r.
10^3.8
10^3.6
10^3.4
S I pe r Ve h km
(no s c ale )
Fatal pe r ve h km
(no s c ale )
The are a at the bo tto m rig ht hand
o f the g raph, be tw e e n the do tte d
blue line - the lo ng te rm tre nd
- and the blac k line , ac tual fatalitie s ,
no w re pre s e nts in e xc e s s o f 10,000
mo re fatalitie s than w o uld have
be e n e xpe c te d in 1993
10^3.2
1000
The SI data fro m abo ut 1996, pro vide d by the po lic e , is no w
kno w n to be bo g us , as ho s pital re c o rds s ho w no s uc h fall
.
10^2.8
Tre nd line
10^2.6
Lo g arithmic Sc ale
(Co ns tant % fall e ac h ye ar w o uld s ho w as falling s traig ht line )
Ye ars
1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
GB FALLING KSI TREND
50000
Casualties
Average 43116
40000
GB KSI
42% GB Fall
30000
20000
Even from 2000 to date, less than 2% of road length
is covered by speed cameras, so they could not
have contributed significantly to this falling trend.
10000
0
1999
Years
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
About 12 times as many SI (serious Injuries) are reported as
fatalities. The 14% Fatal and 7% SI (fatal and serious) figures here
include accidents where the involvement of speeding was just
"possible“ as well as “very likely” and also where speeding was not
the primary cause of the accident but just one of usually several
contributing factors.
The 14% and 7% numbers therefore overstate the importance of
speeding, and even if if cameras completely eliminated speeding which they most certainly do not - they could not eliminate more
than (say) 10% of Fatal and 5% of KSI accidents.
In any case, cameras cover only less than 2% of road length and
(even if placed at sites where accident rates are high, this low
geographical coverage reduces maximum benefit to no more than
the odd 1% of national fatalities (approx. 20 per annum), 0.5% of SI
(about 100) or 120 KSI - at a cost of £100m a year or close to £2bn
to date.
Now let's look at the claims for speed cameras benefit, in the
context of what has happened for decades without them,
taking Safer Roads Humber as an example:
Turn to Part 11