Transcript No Slide Title

Speed Cameras
Cost-Effective Road Accident Reduction
or
Expensive and Dangerous Confidence Trick?
A review based on many thousands of hours' study since 2000
of policies and benefits – real or imaginary.
Idris Francis B.Sc.
[email protected]
01730 829 416 07717 222 459
May 2013
Safer Roads Humber
Annual Safety Camera Progress Report
April 2010 – March 2011
59% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at core
safety camera sites in the Humberside Partnership area
42% reduction in the number of injury collisions at core safety camera
sites in the Humberside Partnership area
£73,223,760 saving in terms of killed or seriously injured
9% reduction in the average speed and a 11% reduction in the 85th
percentile speed
32% reduction in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit at
camera sites.
Safer Roads Humber annual report 2010- 2011
Published March 2012
The partnership has now been operating safety cameras for
eight years and the annual report gives details of the
partnerships performance at core safety camera sites……..
Figures from the report show that, in the eight years since
safety camera enforcement began, there has been a 59 per
cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously
injured at the core safety camera sites. In real terms there are
411 people alive and well today that would have been
killed or seriously injured if safety cameras had not been
introduced.
Hull City Council, like many other Councils across the
country, recently decided to stop funding speed cameras,
North Lincolnshire considered doing so but then decided to
continue funding in view of the casualty reductions
supposedly achieved.
Who was right – are Safer Roads Humber’s claims
justified, wishful thinking or indeed deliberate
misrepresentation?
And even if the claims were justifed, would they represent
good value for money compared to spending the same
money in other ways?
Let's take a closer look at the numbers – starting with
basic information about road and other deaths;-
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 ?
GB FALLING FATALITY and SI TRENDS
8000
Casualties
GB Serious Injuries (multiply by 12)
7000
Hypothecation Scheme
ERM Bust
6000
Speed Cameras
GB Fatalities
5000
Brown Boom
World Bust
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Years
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
GB FALLING KSI TREND
50000
Casualties
2
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
GB v Humberside Falling KSI Trends
120
Casualties
Both scaled to 100% average in 2001
3
110
100
Humberside
90
33%
Humber
Fall
GB KSI
80
70
60
50
40
42% GB Fall
For obvious reasons, casualty trends in each police area tend to be similar to national
trends as shown here..However local data being smaller is more volatile,again as shown here..
For that reason what is significant in this sort of comparison is not whether one graph is above or
below the other - that depends very much on the arbitrary choice of when the figures were scaled
20 to match but how they change over time.
30
10
For the same reason of volatility percentage falls vary considerably depending on quite when the
comparisons start and end
Years
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Main Causes of Long Term Downward Trends in Fatal and Serious Injuries
* Improvements of all kinds in vehicle design - better brakes, tyres,
steering, road-holding, seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple zones, stability
systems
* Better roads and road surfaces, more motorways
* Slowing traffic growth, now falling for the first time since WW2
* Better and quicker medical and other help at accidents and later
* Fewer pedestrians casualties as car ownership widens
* Falling reporting levels of non-fatal injuries (down 25% in recent years)
* and others.
63 Humber Camera Sites, KSI
120
KSI %
A
Scaled to 100% average in 1999/00/01
110
100%
100
90
80
70
3 Year Selection Period
SRH Core camera sites
60
50
40
30
Impressive at first glance?
Graph is for financial year Aprl to March 55% Fall at 63
20
camera sites
10
0
1999
2000 2001
2002
2003 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010 2011
Humber Camera Sites, KSI
120
KSI %
B
Scaled to 100% average in 1999/00/01
110
100%
100
90
But these cameras did not go live until April to Aug 2003
so the large fall in 2002 was nothing to do with them.
Nor did KSI fall in 2003 or 2004.after switch-on.
80
70
3 Year
Selection Period
63 Core camera sites
60
Cameras
switched on
from April
50
40
Impressive at first glance?
30 Take a closer look.....
55% Fall at 63
camera sites
20
10
0
1999
2000 2001
2002
2003 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010 2011
Humbe rs ide KS I with and witho ut c ame ras
120
KS I
71 actual
sites
C
100%
100
254 sites had 3 or more KSI
in 199/00/01, 63 with cameras, 189 without
80
3 year Selection Period
1999/00/01
60
* Operational from
Apr to Aug 2003 on
40
20
SRH's 63 camera sites averaged 3 KSI in 3 years in the selection period
but there were another 189 sites that would have qualified at the same time
on that basis but did not have cameras installed. The graph shows how little
difference there wasbetween their results with and without cameras.
1999
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 2007
2008
2009
Higher in 2011
than in 2005
2010
2011
Humber Camera Sites, KSI v GB
120
KSI
D
Both scaled to 100% average in 1999/00/01
110
100%
100
90
80
42% GB Fall
70
Start of
Enforcement
60
SRH Core camera sites
50
40
30
Showing how falls similar to those claimed as camera benefit also happened across
20 the country where 98% of roads had no cameras.
10
0
1999
2000 2001
2002
2003 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
54% Fall at 63
camera sites
2010 2011
Why Camera Effectiveness Assessment is Nonsense
Casualties
140
E
Camera effectiveness is claimed by many Reports, and indeed stated explicitly
in the 2005 Handbook for Partnerships, to be the fall in casualties from the average
in the 3 year site selection period before camera installation up to date.
120
100
Claimed as
Camera Effect
80
60 However this makes the assumptions, invalid as we have seen, that:
(a) casualties would continue indefinitely at the same level were cameras not installed,
40 (b) the 3 year average accurately represents that long term level. rather than being an
unusally high level which led to the site being selected in the first place.
20 (c) having reduced casualties almost immediately by far more than are ever caused
by speeding in the first place, cameras then continue to reduce them further over time.
0
Why Camera Effectiveness Assessment is Nonsense
Casualties
140
F
However, given that sites are chosen for unusually high casualty numbers,
and given long term trends,observed falls are clearly primarily or indeed
entirely to the two effects shown below:
120
100
Regression to the Mean
(Return to Normal)
80
60
A new analysis of when and where some 7 million injury accidents happened from
1985 to 2011 confirms beyond rational doubt that this is indeed what happens,
on average, across the country, and that results at camera sites are, again on
40
average,indistinguishable from similar sites that have no cameras.
20
0
That claims for camera effecftiveness have been based on incompetent- or, worse,
deliberately misleading - analysis has long been clear to critics. The new analysis
however confirms that they provide no identifiable benefit and certainly none that
remotely justify either the expense or the "war on motorists".
Long term
trend
There is no data in the Report prior to the 1999/00/01 numbers,
the “baseline” level from which they assess reductions, to
establish whether that period’s numbers were normal or
abnormal. When asked for that data SRH replied:
"The casualty data for 1987 to 1998 you have requested is pre
Safer Roads Humber and not held by ourselves. I have
transferred your request to Humberside Police as they may hold
the information“
I replied
"That Safer Roads Humber, whose task is to reduce accidents over
time, has not even bothered to obtain, let alone study, data prior
to the 1999/00/01 site selection period the better to understand
such trends, is not only significant but also utterly damning both
of its competence and its integrity.”
Was it ever possible that the speed reductions claimed for the
sites could ever have brought about the observed reductions in
casualties in any case?
In other words, how significant a contributory factor in
accidents is speeding? Fortunately, since 2005 police Stats 19
data includes whether speeding was a "very likely" or "possible"
factor, and the results have been quite consistent since then.
And equally significant, by how much has speeding actually
been reduced?
The answer in both cases is “Not a lot”
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
450
4,604
1,378
1,759
13,395
2,842
6,882
3,186
4,190
3,152
1,386
5,247
3,533
3,779
20,396
12
2
23
7
9
66
14
34
16
21
15
7
26
17
19
100
Table 4h: Most frequently recorded contributory factors for car drivers
GB 2007
Contributory factor recorded
%
Failed to look properly
20
Failed to judge other person’s path or 11
Careless, reckless or in a hurry
9
Loss of control
8
Poor turn or manoeuvre
8
Slippery road (due to weather)
6
Travelling too fast for conditions
6
Sudden braking
4
Following too close
4
Exceeding speed limit
3 (compared to 6% overall)
Impaired by alcohol
3
Learner or inexperienced driver/rider
3
Disobeyed 'Give Way' or 'Stop' sign
2
Dazzling sun
1
Nervous, uncertain or panic
1
Illness or disability, mental or physic
1
Source – 2007b DfT Report based on police Stats 19 data
Now let's have a look at the speed reductions actually achieved
by Safer Roads Humber’ cameras:
Throughout the list of some 80 sites, speed reductions are in fact
relatively trivial, amounting to only the odd 1 to 3 mph. That,
incidentally, is why SRH choose to quote percentages, hoping that
we will not notice that 9% of 35mph is only 3.2mph. Not not
remotely enough to bring about even the modest casualty
reductions that might theoretically be possible, let alone the
wildly exaggerated claims of the Report.
Look for example at line 5 (in red) where a (strangely precise)
53.11% reduction in KSI was apparently achieved by an increase
in average speed from 44mph to 48mph, an increase in 85th
percentile speed from 47mph to 56mph and a fall in the
percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit only from 83% to
81%! Welcome to Fantasy Land!
.
Summary
Most or all of the observed reduction at those sites would have
happened anyway, without cameras, as it did across the 98% of roads
across the country which have no cameras
A major part of the reduction happened in 2002 before the cameras were
in operation and could not, therefore have been due to them.
After switch-on KSI hardly changed in 2003 or 2004.
It is not credible that cameras, having achieved nothing for 16 to 21
months could then cause the steep fall of 2005 .
Since 2005 the trend has been up, not down.
It is impossible even if speeding were eliminated to bring about more than
5% or so in KSI, and that only on 2% of road length.
Reductions in speed and speeding have been minimal and trivial
And also - DfT values for accidents prevented are nonsense. see
http://www.fightbackwithfacts.com/bogus-dft-values/
“Regression to the Mean” aka “Return to Normal”
At camera sites selected for higher than normal KSI it is likely that
(on average) casualty numbers will fall back to lower levels without
intervention.
We have seen that this happened across Humberside’s 63 core
sites, but also Dave Finney of Slough has established that it
happened across the whole of the Thames Valley police area, in
both cases before their cameras were switched on.
Given the importance of this effect a new analysis of regression to
the mean has been done using police Stats19 data for 6 million
injury accidents from 1985 to 2011 to see what did actually
happen, 300,000 times, at 1km square locations (corresponding to
camera sites) that had suffered at least 3 KSI in 3 years.
The results are consistent across the country and very significant:
25000
20000
15000
Series1
10000
5000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
These graphs – there are hundreds of them for different police areas and
qualifying periods – all confirm that the normal pattern of casualties at sites
selected for higher than normal levels, in the great majority of cases without
cameras, is that:
Numbers follow national trends except in the 3 year selection period
No group of sites that qualifies in any one selection period sees another such
episode – because next time around, accidents being accidents they hppen
somewhere else.
Casualties revert to the normal trend in the first year after the selection
period, and therefore normally before cameras would have been installed
The size of the fall in the first year afterwards is determined by the rise at the
start of the selection period, and clearly not by anything to do with cameras.
Subsequent falls are due to long term trend
The fall from the average of the selection period to the average of years 2, 3
and 4 afterwards is due largely to return to normal but also slightly to trend.
Close to £2bn has been wasted over more than 12 years, pretending to bring
about casualty reductions that would have happened anyway, without
cameras.
For more than a decade a toxic combination of gross
incompetence in planning, analysis and claims by the DfT, its
Consultants, other advisers, vested interests and academics who
really should have known better has wasted close to £2bn,
penalised millions of safe drivers, cost tens of thousands their
licenses and thousands their jobs, businesses and even marriages
and not a few their lives.
Now at last this new analysis confirms beyond rational argument
what many critics have said from the very beginning, that it never
was possible to reduce accidents to any statistically significant
extent at sites, let alone across the country, by using speed
cameras, and that accident reductions at camera sites are little
different from what happens without cameras.
Now at last this nonsense has to stop, now at last those who
have perpetrated this fraud upon drivers and taxpayers, and who
have consistently brushed off reasoned objections, must be
called to account for what they have done.
And when they close down this insane and dangerous system,
Parliament should take the opportunity to repeal Section 172 1998
Road Traffic Act that removes from drivers alone the right of
silence that has been ours for centuries - and still is, for anyone
suspected of any other offence including murder, terrorism, rape,
arson, fraud and thousands more.
The Privy Council decision in 2000 and the ECHR decision in 2007
that authorised the breach of this fundamental principle of our
justice system did so primarily because of a perceived road safety
interest in penalising drivers of speeding vehicles.
Now that there clearly is no such public interest it is time to end
this serious breach of our legal rights so that it becomes once
again the responsibility of the authorities to prove their case, not
the responsibility of the defendant to convict himself out of his
own mouth.
With thanks for advice and assistance to many fellow realists
about and campaigners against speed cameras, including
particularly:
Eric Bridgstock
Ian Belchamber
Dave Finney
Brian Gregory
Al Gullon
Malcolm Heymer
John Lambert
All this information and a great deal more is available at on the
fight back with facts web site. It and may be freely used and
circulated to help bring to an end a scam which has already cost
this country close to £2bn and made our roads more
dangerous.
END