Map of the Week: Road crash victims
Far more people are seriously injured on Britain's roads than the government figures suggest. Analysis by the UK Statistics Authority, the watchdog for official data, reveals "the under-reporting of road accident casualties is a significant and intractable problem" [78Kb PDF].
Instead of 26,000 people suffering serious injury after road accidents last year, the Department for Transport accepts that the true figure may be closer to 50,000. And the UKSA fears that the under-counting may mean the issue does not get the attention it deserves.
"The published statistics may not be sufficiently reliable to meet all user needs", the authority argues, demanding that the Department for Transport "explain and contextualise the limitations of the statistics more fully at the time of publication".
This matters because the level of carnage caused by drivers shapes road safety policy. As the authority puts it today: "These statistics are used... to save lives and reduce injury on the roads."
If twice as many people as previously chronicled are suffering serious injury, the arguments for greater use of measures to target bad and reckless drivers become more compelling.
The Department for Transport has long known that its data on road casualties is suspect.
As the National Audit Office recently put it:
"There have been a number of studies of under-reporting, dating back to the 1970s, and from the limited data available it is estimated that there may be about twice as many casualties as are reported, although very few fatalities are unrecorded."
The question for government, though, is not whether the figures under-record. They accept that they do. "The issue," as the most recent internal report puts it, "is how constant over time are the levels of under-recording, misclassification and under-reporting, especially of serious accidents" [319Kb PDF].
In other words, it is the trend not the number that matters - and for the last decade, the government has been reporting a downward picture.
The good news is that while our roads have got substantially busier, deaths have declined from around 3,500 a year to 2,500. The less good news is that fatalities in motor vehicles are still among the most common ways for 15-34-year-olds in Britain to lose their lives.
Three times as many people are killed in road crashes than get murdered. More than a thousand more die in motor accidents than from illegal drugs.
I am indebted to The Grim Reaper's Road Map by Mary Shaw, Bethan Thomas, George Davey Smith and Danny Dorling for this picture of death on Britain's roads. (An explanation as to why these maps look unfamiliar can be found here.)
Their maps (for males above and for females below) show the places where people are most likely to die in a car crash. The lowest rates are found in urban areas, with London, Newcastle, Greater Manchester and Cardiff having particularly low incidence.
In rural areas, where car use is more often necessary and where average speeds are higher, rates can be many times greater. The worst place for road deaths is the north of Scotland.
The average age of a road death victim is 36.9, and three-quarters of those who die are men - predominantly in their teens, 20s and 30s.
While the death figures are probably reasonably robust, MPs are worried about the injury statistics. Earlier this month, the chair of the Transport Select Committee, Louise Ellman MP, referred to the "national scandal" of death and injury on Britain's roads and the absence of good statistics.
"The Committee was extremely concerned about the lack of reliability in the data on road injuries, particularly those in relation to serious injuries. (...) We want the Government to do more on that issue, as we are not satisfied that the information that we are getting is accurate."
She also made the point that motoring fatalities simply don't get the same headlines as those who die in plane or train crashes.
"It is self-evident. Indeed, it should make us think a little - that the scale of the carnage on our roads is not acceptable in any other mode of transport. We are talking about 2,500 people dead and more than 230,000 casualties, and, if those figures related to rail, sea or aviation, there would be national uproar. However, there is no uproar about them."
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"This matters because the level of carnage caused by drivers shapes road safety policy."
This is very strange. With other topics (knife crime, drugs) we had static/declining figures & concerns about the accuracy of the stats. This was interpretted as meaning the media/political hype/panic was ill founded.
Here we have 30 million road vehicles driving average 12,000 miles per year (taking just the average for private cars, not comercial) a total of 360 billion vehicle miles, with 2500 deaths: 1 death per 144 million miles. The number is not static, deaths per vehicle mile is declining significantly.
What justifies the media hype/panic of language like 'carnage'?
Complain about this comment
I'll bet this leads to more speed cameras being used as well as an increase in the fines levied on those caught speeding.
I'll also bet that there are no plans made to analyse the design of our roads, the level of maintenance, the amount of street furniture and the ever increasing amount of signs along the road side.
I recently visited a friend in Berlin and was amazed at how much better the German roads are compared to Britain's, they are often wider, smooth & free from unnecessary obstructions and distractions while the level of maintenance put ours to shame.
British roads have become an obstacle course in recent years, drivers are constantly distracted by the huge amount of signs popping up along all of our roads and I can't remember the last time I drove more than a mile without having to avoid pot-holes.
If British motorists are paying around 45 billion pounds in taxation every year (according to RAC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8165606.stm ) then why don't we have the best designed and maintained roads in the world ?
Could it be because taxation in Britain is never a direct taxation and all taxes are paid into a central fund to be used for whatever the government decides ?
Wouldn't a better system be to ring-fence all taxation paid by motorists for transport, be it improving the road system or subsidising public transport or any other costs associated with driving ?
I'd also like to know what people consider an acceptable number of deaths and injuries a year on our roads. Driving can never be totally safe and there will always be accidents so just how many would be acceptable ?
Complain about this comment
"What justifies the media hype/panic of language like 'carnage'?"
Well, you'd assume it's probably got something to do with a level of deaths from 250 to 500 times what you find on the railways. Or aviation? Oops. Nobody has died on a western operated aircraft this year.
Or terrorism/ swine flu etc, etc, etc. How many people die compared to road deaths? Its a mere decimal point, but look at the coverage, you wouldn't think it.
Therefore, it looks like if anything road deaths are vastly under hyped and trivialised in comparison.
Complain about this comment
I think the debate is really about how the media treats the mortality issue whether it is Michael Jackson, the 180 soldiers killed in Afghanistan, the 2 to 3 thousand killed on our roads, the 5000 killed through hospital/medical accidents/negligence, or the 10,000 + who may die of flu this winter or the 100,000s killed by natural disasters. It should put into context the probabilities of mortality through terrorist action (50 + since 7/7)which seems to be the main focus of this government in terms of interest and resources. For example if better driving was promoted like supermarket food or cosmetics (drive carefully because your family thinks you are worth it)there would be further reductions in road deaths or check that patient because next time it could be you! In these vital matters we should expect more of our politicians than just to be shackled to the knee jerk obsessions of the media.
Complain about this comment
Personally, I do believe that 'Carnage' is appropriate terminology. And not just for the UK but for road fatalities globally. It's estimated that more than 1.3 million people are killed each year on the world's roads (around 3000 every day) - and that figure is rising. It's also clear that awareness will only partly solve the problem. The UK's Think! campaign has been around for many years and, although sucessful in many areas, there will alway be those that break the rules if they believe they'll get away with it. Better roads, better signage, and stricter enforcement of the rules are a must. If the UK really wants to see a step change in its fatality figures there needs to be increased focus from all parties (including the media). This is the ideal year for that focus to be called for. In November Moscow will host the first ever Ministerial Conference on road safety (held by the UN). The anticipated outcome of the meeting will be a call for a 'decade of action' to improve road safety. Let's hope the UK (which is one of the world's better countries for road safety) uses this event to both push for a step change in the UK - and also to share, in a more structured and proactive way, our own best practices with other countries less fortunate than our own (such as the Think! awareness programme).
Complain about this comment
Think I have to disagree for once, Mark - road deaths are dropping, a statistic that is pretty reliable and we remain one of the best countries for that figure
Fact is there is a certain amount of risk in driving, as there is with any pursuit and for the most part most people can be rest assured they are pretty safe in their cars
As for media coverage - as far as I'm aware any large crash involving deaths is well covered nationally, and most fatal crashes will be covered locally in my experience - if a particular road is a black spot then that usually gets some attention and campaigning
As for the comparison to air/rail crashes getting more attention - well what do you expect? - when you drive you are personally responsible, when you are in a plane full of 300 people you have entrusted your life to a company and a stranger, of course people are going to be a lot more concerned if they are at risk of becoming essentially innocent victims
Complain about this comment
3. At 9:32pm on 27 Jul 2009, Peter027 wrote:
"What justifies the media hype/panic of language like 'carnage'?"
Well, you'd assume it's probably got something to do with a level of deaths from 250 to 500 times what you find on the railways. Or aviation?
=====================================
Peter, I was commenting on the coverage, usually Mark is telling us that the popular press has got it all wrong, there is no crime wave etc. With road deaths we don't just have no massive upsurge we have a massive decline - so I'm questioning the hype. Mark is doing exactly what he usually acccuses the tabloids of doing.
The reality is the roads are actually incredible safe - at 12k miles per year on average I would have to drive for 12,000 years to be involved in a fatal accident.
Until all roads are fenced off, pedestrians banned by law and the cars all run in the same direction in seperated lanes then you couldn't compare them even with railways. It's the equivalent of expecting the same levels of fatalities in construction/mining/deep sea fishing as you can acheive in an insurance office.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we dont carry on with the improving situation on road safety - just keep it in perspective with the hype.
Complain about this comment
Much public money is spent making the roads more dangerous, in the form of poorly designed chicanes and road humps. As 2 examples, recent newly introduced traffic calming measures near my home, include a single-side build-out which reduces the width of the road to one vehicle located on a bend with very restricted visibility. I only hope no-one is seriously inujured or dies as a result, and should that happen, I hope the highway authority will be taken through the courts. Another example is a set of unusually vicious speed cushions immediately before (and after, I don't know why) a zebra crossing. As a result drivers are concentrating on how to negotiate the obstacles, not on what nearby pedestrians are likely to do. Politeness restrains me!
Complain about this comment
Personally I am not surprised by the number of deaths on the roads declining. This has nothing to do with government initiatives and everything to do with car design. 20 years ago airbags were non-existant, nowadays if a car crashes it inflates like a bouncy castle. Car manufacturers are even taking pedestrian safety into account in their designs. ABS has made it far easier to avoid or reduce the severity of a crash, and improvements in the handling of cars has made it much harder to push a car over the edge. If you were to drive a new hatchback and an equivalent model from 10 years ago it would amaze you as to how much more stable the modern car is. Personally I think that if our roads were better maintained so that you didn't have to weave accross the road to avoid losing your car in a pothole so deep the animals inside have evolved to live in perpetual darkness then the roads would be a much safer place. Clearing signs of over grownplants would also help, as road users would be able to adjust for hazards, junctions etc. much earlier. That and more opportunities for people to drive their car on the edge in closed road events. This would take some of the drivers who enjoy the thrill of speed off the country roads, where deaths are at their highest.
Complain about this comment
The fact that serious injuries are under reported for road traffic accidents is no news to anyone who has been keeping up with this area. What isn't said here is that that this is a delibrate policy of the DoT/Government to justify their road safety policies ( or lack of them).
A couple of years ago a couple of hospital Doctors got so annoyed at this
lie they produced the report below:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7558/73
It quite clearly shows that while the Police serious accident figures have showed a consistent significant drop the hospital figures have not.
Other commentators have noted that while the serious accident rates have allegedly decreased by 40% the number of road deaths has only slightly decreased, which is not what you would expect.
You compare road deaths with rail deaths but ignore the fact that 290 people died on the railways last year ( according to the BTP). That is a collosal ammount when compared to the 2538 killed on the roads given that the roads carry 20 times the traffic, have the problems caused by differing types of traffic and have to cope with local traffic.
Complain about this comment
I am not surprised as i see these lunatic drivers every day, a big sign saying 20 is out side my house yet people do 40 60 or whatever they like. 'More than a thousand more die in motor accidents than from illegal drugs.' Again no surprise there as well you know Mark that the danger of drugs has been greatly overestimated, and it appears the dangers of cars greatly underestimated. People dont have any respect once they get into their car. The other day i got my pram stuck on a curb and the first car to pass me sped up and shouted abuse at me, nice people hey. the law needs to start punishing irresponsible drivers.
Complain about this comment
8. At 08:31am on 28 Jul 2009, penwithstar wrote:
"...I only hope no-one is seriously inujured or dies as a result, and should that happen, I hope the highway authority will be taken through the courts...."
Rest assured, the Police would treat every engineer involved in the design and implementation of such a scheme as a murderer (see Road Deaths Investigation Manual).
2. At 6:30pm on 27 Jul 2009, Secratariat wrote:
"I'll also bet that there are no plans made to analyse the design of our roads, the level of maintenance, the amount of street furniture and the ever increasing amount of signs along the road side."
The UK has an extensive library of standards which dictate modern road design. It is the historic rural lanes which are ultimately just surfaced field boundaries or cattle tracks where drivers feel they have the right to drive as fast as they can, that are the killers.
The latest development in road design is 'passive safety' (active safety being the systems in the vehicle), wherein all those signs are designed to fail in a safe manner when hit by a vehicle.
"...while the level of maintenance put ours to shame."
And presumably Germans are willing to pay for that level of maintenance. Ask any Local Authority engineer about their maintenance budget and watch a grown man weep.
"British roads have become an obstacle course in recent years, drivers are constantly distracted by the huge amount of signs popping up along all of our roads and I can't remember the last time I drove more than a mile without having to avoid pot-holes."
See my previous comment re rural lanes. If we had the money available we would upgrade them to modern standards (wider, flatter curves, better drainage). If we could trust all errant drivers not to sue or to drive within the conditions at all times we would do away with the signs.
At present we can do neither.
Complain about this comment
|"If twice as many people as previously chronicled are suffering serious |injury, the arguments for greater use of measures to target bad and |reckless drivers become more compelling."
No we need better overall safety measures which may include the trying reducing the number of poor drivers (of all sorts).
But the figures are odd. What is serious injury? Since I assume a seriously injured person needs paramedical attention and hospital treatment, and hospitals are supposed to collect a set amount from insurance and they always ask me if it was a RTA, why is the data so poor.
Is it as poor in other serious injury statistics?
Complain about this comment
May I be permitted to add a further comment. Some contributors stress enforcement as a cure. But in real life enforcement is expensive and resented and lobbied against. In fact most of the improvement in the death rate has been brought about by the other hate target, the application of standard H&S risk analysis. Road users have been 'nudged'into safer behaviour by passive measures on the roads, (layout for example even road markings) and made safer by passive safety in there cars. Even pedestrians have benefited a bit from the latter.
Oh and by the way other road users other than drivers cause accidents.
Complain about this comment
13. At 10:11am on 28 Jul 2009, cping500 wrote:
"But the figures are odd. What is serious injury? Since I assume a seriously injured person needs paramedical attention and hospital treatment, and hospitals are supposed to collect a set amount from insurance and they always ask me if it was a RTA, why is the data so poor."
Personal injury accident definitions;
Fatal injury: an injury which causes death less than 30 days after the accident,
Serious injury: an injury which does not cause death less than 30 days after the accident, and which requires hospital treatment (or causes death more than 30 days after the incident),
Slight injury: an injury which is neither "fatal" nor "serious" (essentially treated at the roadside for cuts and bruises.
Complain about this comment
If a soldier dies in Afghanistan, his death will make the main news headlines, intoned sonorously by the presenter. If he dies in a road accident whilst on leave from Afghanistan, the chances are it will only make the inside page of the local rag. Why, one wonders, do we differentiate so? In both cases, the risks were known and accepted by the victim, so why do we as outsiders always want to stop others taking risks? Is it not the case that, especially for young people, risk taking is an essential part of life? Block it off, and they will find some other way to test themselves, such as tombstoning or whatever. If road deaths are to be prevented, then stop all traffic- clearly unacceptable. Therefore, accept road deaths as part of our freedoms, even though they are tragic for the victims families. This constant desire to prevent us all from harm, whatever the cost, is corrosive to a nations character. Sounds very right wing, I know, and I'm not, but I am really concerned about about our attempts to have a risk free society.
Complain about this comment
15.
This is where the fiddling has occurred. This Government introduced a new measure of Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI). All Government targets
now refer to KSI's.
Whereas the definition of Killed leaves little room for manouver the definition of a serious injury has plenty of slack. At the top end it means dieing 30 or more days after an accident, at the lower end it can mean a bad cut, a bad burn, concusion,a broken bone or anything that makes you stay in hospital overnight. By far the greatest number of injuries are at the lower end. This means the KSI figures are dominated by low end serious injuries and a small change in the definition of "a bad cut" can have a dramatic effect on the figures.
But what we have seen is even worse. As the definition of a serious injury includes all hospital admissions as well as some other injuries it is obvious that the number of serious injuries must be greater than the number of hospital admissions and this used to be the case, it isn't any longer.
Have a read of:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7558/73
Complain about this comment
Gordon, the risk free society doesn't exist, and if it did would be a dreadful place to be. I agree with The Hess in that improved vehicle design is probably the biggest factor especially crumple zones which remove as much energy as possible in an impact. I think the insurance companies also do a good job too in trying to limit the number of under 25s off the roads. In just the last 2 weeks 7 people have been killed round here and in both accidents was a 20 something at the wheel. I read recently that the costs of insurance for first time young drivers could be cut by as much as £500 if they went on a training course costing £100 within a year of passing their tests. Since insurance companies are pretty smart at making money it seems to me that what they are saying is that the current systems of approving an individual are inadequate. It also strikes me that if they think a £100 training course will save them £500 a year then the government ought to consider making it mandatory.
Complain about this comment
18. At 12:03pm on 28 Jul 2009, filipinomonkey wrote:
"Since insurance companies are pretty smart at making money it seems to me that what they are saying is that the current systems of approving an individual are inadequate."
Not necessarily. It's 20 years since I took my test, but I remember it was just me and the examiner in a Nissan Sunny at about three in the afternoon.
It certainly wasn't me, the examiner, and three of my tanked up mates in a Nova SRi at eleven at night.
The essential skills may be OK, it's the change in driver attitude between those two scenarios that needs to be prevented somehow.
Complain about this comment
filipinomonkey - for training courses =, yes you do recieve a discount, but the passplus scheme also provides a significant discount. There are a number of reasons for this. firstly, anyone willing to give up both time and money voluntarily will be more enthusiastic about driving and probably a better driver as a result. This is where I disagree about it being mandatory. How do you determine who the good and not so good drivers are. Also, it covers the aspects of driving that are not covered in the test. Personally I don't think young drivers should be penalised financially, we already pay several thousand pounds in insurance. Insurance companies LOVE young drivers as they can charge us prices that are essentially theft. If you saw Top Gear you will see the enormous premiums they charge us. I had a quote for a ford fiesta (ok it was the 2 litre version) for £100,000!!! The car cost £8,200.
I feel that resitting the test every 5-10 years would go a long way. I remember noticing all the differences between how I was taught to drive and how my parents were. I'm 19 so perhaps a little biased but it always seems to be 'do-gooders' who propose these changes without considering the implications.
Complain about this comment
19. At 12:37pm on 28 Jul 2009, Frankie-Black wrote:
Not necessarily. It's 20 years since I took my test, but I remember it was just me and the examiner in a Nissan Sunny at about three in the afternoon.
It certainly wasn't me, the examiner, and three of my tanked up mates in a Nova SRi at eleven at night.
=======================================
I would agree with that and add another similar issue.
Mark points out that the deaths aren't evenly distributed - the hot spots are single carriageway rural roads.
Most people do their tests at a test centre in town. Mine never got above 30mph. I drive mostly on rural roads these days and it couldn't be more different. A wrong decision about speed round a bend, a wrong overtaking decision etc and a very serious incident would result. It won't be a fender bender.
I would love to see pass-plus type courses which cover such issues in rural driving which haven't been properly covered in the ordinary lessons and test. I would certainly have benefitted from it - I learned early on my skills weren't good enough and bought a book (police driver training manual - available from WHS) it totally reinforced how much I had not been aware of. I understand that insurance companies will give money off for additional training and that sounds like a good way to encourage people.
Complain about this comment
Social trade-offs are an interesting concept. Clearly we all accept a certain level of highway deaths, in every country, for having greater mobility. It has become an accepted result of increased mobility. On the other hand we do not accept a lower level of deaths from drug use as you report. The reporting of average age, urban versus rural, male versus female all seems to somehow make it predictable or acceptable. I guess because we can estimate how many will die next year and in what age categories we all just accept this as a part of society. Because we as a society accept certain outcomes for our collective decisions does not mean those decisions do not have consequences for individuals within the society. Like surgery, some people get better and others may die, it is the risks involved with the outcomes.
Complain about this comment
Comment 11 is typical of emotion based arguements, comparing end figures of deaths linked to drug use. Get some maths education before posting such a stupid comment, compare as percentage on useage!
The government does the same with it's figures to bias the policies it wants to promote, home safety reports more fatal accidents in the home cause than the roads, does that mean the communists in power will tax DIY?
Complain about this comment
There is one over-riding correlation. That is that serious road accidents occur on single carriageway roads far more than in slow/very slow urban areas.
As the UK cities grind to a halt, or traffic moves at a snail's pace, then it becomes far more difficult to be seriously injured in a car accident.
Far from being a success, all that the reducing figures demonstrate is that the infrastructure in the UK is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. Folks who think this is down to good road planning or management are kidding themselves.
Complain about this comment
I recently found that the numbers of fatalities and serious injuries for motorcyclists has declined. It seems to me that people riding bikes have got better at it and are more aware of dangers, while more car drivers are aware of the presence of bikes. Despite this the government has recently massively increased the obstacles to a motorcycle licence. The age of the average motorcyclist is also increasing, so maybe safety has more to do with experience and is not necessary improved by better training. We should therefore be letting people have access to cars and bikes at a younger age.
Complain about this comment
I think the term "road accident" should be abolished. The vast majority of killings on the road are not "accidents" and are caused by idiot drivers driving too fast and/or without any attention or respect paid to other road users.
I see all kinds of lunatic every day on my 30 mile e/w drive who are quite content to run the risk of killing someone in order to get to where they need to. We should no longer pander to motorists' lobbies and have more cameras and more enforcement to weedle out the small minority of drivers who cause most of the carnage.
Complain about this comment
Several points. First, the level of deaths certainly puts the hysteria of swine flu into perspective.
Second, if we are really serious about tackling the "carnage" on our roads, start with raising the driving age to 21 from 17, and have a compulsory psychological test to establish a would be driver's fitness to drive.
Second, move away from the obsession with speeding, and really, and I mean REALLY clamp down on the irresponsible things that drivers of all ages and genders do whilst supposedly concentrating on the road. Some examples, using mobile phones, eating, drinking hot drinks, putting on make up, shaving, tooth brushing, even watching TV and video. All these can be seen every day, anywhere in the UK's high speed (OK perhaps not high speed) motorway network.
Complain about this comment
Eviscera
The CBT (Compulsory Basic Training) was introduced for motorbikes a few years ago, this is a two hour training course that all bikers are required to pass before being able to ride with L-Plates. The reduction in injuries & deaths is mainly down to this but there's also the improved design of protective clothing to take into account too.
I'm a biker and had to complete this training and I can tell you that it was very useful and I believe completing it helped keep me safe while I was training for my bike test, unlike learning to drive, bikers can ride on L-Plates for two years after passing their CBT.
Even before the new test regulations came in last year the bike test had been made far more thorough several years ago, my bike test was about 45 minutes long and involved riding on all roads accept motorways as well as various set procedures (emergency stop, U-turn etc). Combined with the engine power restrictions that were put in place for new and young riders at about the same time.
These days a new rider under the age of 21 can not ride a motorbike with a power output greater than 33 BHP and riders over the age of 21 must either wait for two years before getting a more powerful bike or, as I did, they can learn under supervision & take their test on a "big bike" (over 500cc, power output greater than 33 BHP) and they can then ride whatever bike they want.
This graduated learning is the real improvement in my opinion, years ago you could take your test on a low-powered 125cc and then go out and buy a GP replica bike capable of over 180 mph, and this resulted in lots of rider deaths in the first two years of riding.
Now most riders start off on a scooter, then move up to a 125cc learner bike for a few years before moving up to a high powered bike, by which time they've had a few years experience of riding.
There are aspects of the new bike test I don't like and I'm glad I never had to take it but on the whole I've got to say I think that the improved training and the increased experience you gain as a result of it has been a major factor in reducing the number of injuries & deaths suffered by my fellow bikers.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I actually think that a number of issues here need to be separated.
(1) Insurance has little to do with this and the cost of insurance has been skewed because the Government has never bothered to make only the third party element compulsory. i.e you could use the tax disc as a means of collecting the third party premia, leaving the Comprehensive bit for insurance companies to haggle over, The current legislation is like writing a blank check for them.
(2) Driver attitude cannot be wholly to blame, if the number of drivers is increasing and the number of fatalities is roughly static then as a rule the driving attitude is getting better. However how many high powered cars are being pranged just because people are not trained to handle them.
(3) Yes cars are better designed but they give a sense of false security because of the airbags and people feel invincible. Certainly these safety features are highlighted but that must convince some people that the car will do the right thing.
(4) Many of the accidents occur on stretches of single road which have not had uprating such as crash barriers as pointed out in a recent report. People who know these stretches know the pitfalls but the reality is that the Government has failed to spend the money in these areas and many road surfaces are appaling.
It is clear that speed cameras do not solve the problem in fact I think they lead to dangerous driving with drivers coming in at high speed only to brake to avoid the cameras, but it is clear that drivers do not have all the blame.
There is an inconsistency in speeding policy with drivers penalised for going fast but not compensated for delays in excessive road works that take so long.
Complain about this comment
I've got a chip in my car...it stores my driving info and can be downloaded by a traffic safety check. If all cars had this fitted (reduction of insurance premiums) then the quality of driving would be better. Modified retests for those over 60 yrs age ? I'm ready.
Engine rooms in ships have data loggers monitoring statistics.
Some may complain about intrusion; the mobile phone is already trackable.
Complain about this comment
@ chazz40
More cameras will not neccessarily help. How does a camera detect last minute, unsignalled lane changes which cut up other drivers? How can a camera detect tailgating? What has happened is that the government has substituted police patrol vehicles for cameras. Cameras cannot detect a drunk driver if he is simply weaving accross the road in such a way that he isn't speeding. More enforcement - yes; more cameras - no.
For those who believe in toughening up the rules on young drivers there is an interesting blog here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/grahamstewart/2009/07/should_we_make_life_harder_for.shtml - It covers various changes to the law with regards to young drivers.
Perhaps a more open discussion is needed with those in power, motorists from accross Britain and experts to really decide what needs to be done.
Complain about this comment
Are these maps also available for northern ireland?
Complain about this comment
Good grief, what was possibly against the house rules in my comment #29?
I'll make my points again briefly, in a numbered way. If this also breaks the house rules, perhaps you could be good enough to tell me which one is against the rules? I genuinely have no idea. I really am starting to understand why others on these blogs moan so much about inconsistent moderation.
1. "Carnage" seems an appropriate term to me.
2. Reasons for No 1: 2500 deaths may not be many as a proportion of the number of road journeys, but as an absolute number, it's still a lot.
3. The number of deaths could be reduced substantially if the police were more active in catching those breaking motoring laws
4. The number of deaths would probably also be reduced if there were tougher penalties for those caught.
5. Sadly, it's unlikely that much progress will be made with 3 & 4 because the motoring lobby is so powerful.
Complain about this comment
How do the maps for ambulance response times compare with those for road deaths? I would have thought the death rate in rural areas would be higher because they are further from hospital treatment.
Complain about this comment
The_Hess
You're right about cameras being ineffective.
My brother was killed when he was knocked off his motorbike when the driver of a large car decided to change lanes on the motorway without checking his mirrors or blind spot, he was also on the phone at the time.
He hit my brother's bike, knocking him off it and sadly there are few things that can save you when you hit the central barriers at 70 mph.
I've noticed over the last few years a deterioration in driving standards that can, in situations like this, lead to someone dying. If we had more Police on the streets then some of this dangerous driving would be noticed and punished, after a few high-profile cases of people being prosecuted we may get people thinking about this more and trying to improve their driving standards.
Cameras can not detect dangerous driving, people can spot it a mile off. Get rid of some of the cameras and use the money saved to train more traffic Police.
Complain about this comment
#36:
Very sorry to hear about your brother. You're absolutely right: more police on the roads could go a long way towards getting rid of dangerous drivers. The sort of behaviour you describe is very hard to detect with cameras, easy to detect with unmarked police cars.
One thing puzzles me, however: "get rid of some of the cameras and use the money saved..."
Don't cameras pay for themselves with the fines they generate? And anyway, although cameras can only detect speeding, surely that's better than not detecting anything at all? What's wrong with having more police on the road and cameras as well?
Complain about this comment
DisgustedOfMitcham2
A bit of a simplistic analysis there mate.
Cameras are paid for by the local authority and the local Police but not all of the money generated by the camera's in fines goes back to them, the government is keeping a lot of this money and using it as a form of general taxation. I'd like to give you some statistics but unfortunately the government haven't released them.
In effect, we're paying for the Camera's from our Council Tax and any money being returned to our local authorities from fines is ear-marked and must be used for more traffic measures (normally, more camera's or maintaining the ones we've already got).
The argument that camera's pay for themselves is therefore a little misleading and #36 is making a good point because the pot of money being used to pay for the camera's could be used to pay for improvements to the roads or to pay for extra traffic Police instead while a lot of the money generated in fines just goes back to the general tax pot the government uses.
This is why Swindon have decided to scrap their fixed speed camera's (but not their mobile camera's) and instead use the money on improving road design, resurfacing damaged roads and other safety measures.
Personally I think speed cameras are a waste of time other than in very specific cases, their blanket use is making congestion worse, cause plenty of accidents themselves and are also ineffective against foreign vehicles and motorbikes (many cameras are front facing & can not catch a motorbike as they don't have a license plate on the front).
The governments propaganda message that Speed Kills has been overdone so much that all other traffic problems are being ignored, dangerous driving, uninsured drivers, tiredness, poor road design, lack of maintenance and many other things each cause as many or more accidents every year than people speeding but the only thing ever being targeted is speeding.
Complain about this comment
#38:
But that's not an argument for getting rid of speed cameras. It's just an argument for being a bit more sensible about the way the fines from them are distributed.
You are right that speed cameras are not perfect. But plenty of things are not perfect and are still useful. By way of an analogy, the burglar alarm in my house would not stop me getting burgled by a sophisticated professional thief with detailed knowledge of how to circumvent alarm systems. But I still think it's worth having.
What is the evidence for your assertion that speed cameras cause accidents? I suspect that's just propaganda put out by the speedophile lobby. I agree that the evidence either way on speed cameras is of rather low quality, but such evidence as there is consistently shows that speed cameras make accidents less, not more, likely. See Pilkington and Kinra, BMJ 2005;330:331-334 if you're not familiar with the evidence.
Complain about this comment
DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
#38: But that's not an argument for getting rid of speed cameras.
If you read my post you may notice that I never said it was.
I also love that any time someone gives an answer you don't like you automatically accuse them of believing propaganda and switch to another point, good old diversionary tactics at play.
How about, just for a while, you accept that other people have differing points of view and stop accusing us all of being brain-washed just because we disagree with you ?
Your use of "speedophile" is also, quite frankly, a pathetic way to try to link the harm caused by paedophiles to that caused by people speeding, even though the vast majority of people who break the speed limit do so without causing any harm to anyone, unlike paedophiles.
I had a crash at a track day a couple of years ago and came off my motorbike at over 110 mph, other than a few bruises I walked away without a single injury. Compare this to a friend of mine who had someone pull out of a junction in front of him while he was doing less than 30 mph about the same time who is now going to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair and we can see that the "Speed Kills" argument is also a pathetic attempt at solving the problems we have on our roads.
If there wasn't such an obsession with speed we may actually have some resources put into the multitude of other problems we have that cause accidents on our roads.
The only honest thing we can say about speed is that the faster you're going when involved in an accident, the more likely you are to suffer serious injury but as we all know, high speed roads like motorways have far less accidents on them than our country roads because they are designed and maintained to a far higher standard.
"What is the evidence for your assertion that speed cameras cause accidents?"
Insp John Williams, head of the divisional traffic unit in Hazel Grove, said the much-maligned bright yellow speed cameras, which have come under constant fire from drivers' groups and road safety campaigners in the area, were in many cases "clearly not working".
He claimed it would be better to conceal them so reckless drivers did not know they were present.
"We have had a couple of accidents immediately before speed cameras, where it appears that speeding motorists have braked severely and caused accidents," said Insp Williams.
"That is a fact, and we have noticed the traffic is slowing down dramatically before speed cameras and then picks up again once it has passed them. We have to acknowledge that road safety campaigners do have a point."
Source: http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s/310/310221_visible_speed_cameras_cause_accidents__police_chief.html
"It has been revealed that a motorway speed camera which is the most profitable speed indicator in the country has actually increased the number of accident claims that are made.
The camera catches up to 500 drivers a day, generating around £1 million a year in speeding fines. Meanwhile, road accidents have risen by a quarter and casualties have nearly doubled since the camera was installed on the M11, near Woodford, Essex.
Statistics showed that in the five years before the camera was put up; there were 13 accidents and 14 casualties. In the following five years, the number of accidents rose to 16 and casualties are up to 24."
Source: http://www.accidentsdirect.com/Accident-Claims-News/12751146-M11-speed-camera-causes-accident-claims.aspx
Or are the Police and insurance companies part of the motoring lobby too ?
There are countless other reports out there, just type speed cameras cause accidents into Google and youll find thousands of them, unfortunately weve yet to have any detailed studies done relating to the effects of speed cameras so it is impossible to get a bigger picture. Even Pilkingotn & Kinra is very limited in its scope.
The Department for Transports report from 2006 (a copy of which can be found at the bottom of page on the following link: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/13/1362.asp ), states that the most common factors contributing to road accidents, in order, are:
Failed to look properly
Failed to judge other persons path/speed
Careless, reckless or in a hurry
Poor turn/manoeuvre
Loss of control
Going too fast for conditions (but under the posted limit)
Pedestrian failed to look properly
Following too close
Sudden braking
Fewer than 5 percent of accidents were attributed to excessive speed.
And the Hurt Report also suggested that speed was not a major cause of accidents for motorcycles, contrary to what most people assume to be the case, a summary can be found here:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~john/vfr/hurt.html
Speed cameras, as we have seen from the Police and insurers above, can cause accidents as people break suddenly when approaching them but more importantly, the obsession with speed and speed cameras is causing the government to loose sight of the other major contributory factors that are causing many of our road traffic accidents and as such people are being injured and killed because the government only ever deals with speeding.
As my previous post stated, speed cameras are a useful tool when used appropriately but their blanket use is both a cause of accidents and a distraction from many of the more important problems we face when looking at traffic accidents.
Complain about this comment
#40:
"Even Pilkingotn & Kinra is very limited in its scope"
Did you read the paper? It's a systematic review of all the literature that has been published anywhere in the world. How much more scope would you like? Should they have looked at the effect of speed cameras on Mars?
In any case, I think it's a bit rich for you to criticise its scope when all the evidence you offer in return is the opinion of one police officer and what happened on the M11 near Woodford. (Why is the M11 near Woodford so important? Is it just because it happens to support your theory?)
I agree with you that speed is not the most important factor in road safety. But it is still a factor, and given that the technology exists to enforce speed limits very easily, I can't see any reason for not having speed cameras on every road.
Complain about this comment
DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
"I can't see any reason for not having speed cameras on every road."
Now you're just having a laugh.
Do you have any idea how much that would cost ?
Not to mention the backlash that would result from such a policy.
How about we compare Britain with Germany ?
Since 1993 German road deaths have reduced by 41.3%. British road deaths have reduced by 8.2%
If Britain had followed the German trend since 1993, road deaths would be down to 2,240 by now, over 5,500 people who have died on our roads would still be alive.
2004 figures for road deaths in Germany reveal an 11.6% improvement in a single year. The UK has not had such an improvement in a whole decade.
They did have a higher figure to start with but even so, their success puts our failure into perspective.
And what have the Germans done different to us ?
They've improved their road design, improved post-crash medical treatment & improved driver training but they have not littered their roads with thousands of speed cameras.
They have also not bombarded everyone with the message that speed kills, in Germany the emphasis is on safe driving, not speed. So when I was last visiting my friends in Berlin I was doing about 140 mph on the autobahn and the Police I overtook didn't even raise an eyebrow but when people start driving erratically the Police are all over them and any car that looks the slightest bit dodgy is pulled over and given a good looking at by the Police to make sure it is roadworthy.
The British obsession with speed is just a distraction and unfortunately it is costing us hundreds if not thousands of lives a year on our roads.
As the DfT figures also show that only 5 percent of accidents are a result of excessive speed it is also illogical that we should focus on it so much while we ignore all of the other contributing factors.
Putting a speed camera on every road would be the culmination of the governments short-sightedness and those supporting such a move would carry the burden of those extra lives lost on our roads as the improvements we should be making would be ignored in favour of their pet-project.
How about, for once, we look at other policies that have worked in other countries and then try adopting them for our own needs ?
Complain about this comment
#42:
"Do you have any idea how much that would cost ?"
Funny how the speedophile lobby say on the one hand that speed cameras are just a revenue raising measure, but on the other hand they cost too much money. You can't have it both ways.
As for Germany, how do you know they wouldn't have done better still if they had had more speed cameras?
But if we're going to trade statistics on particular countries, why not look at Israel? They increased the speed limit there, and more people died. See Friedman et al, Injury Prevention 2007;13:156-161.
BTW, your figure of less than 5% of accidents being due to speed is rather at the lower end of most estimates. Have a look at http://tinyurl.com/m46ael for a nice little commentary on that statistic. (You might also be interested to read a comment on the same page about the use of the word "speedophile").
I totally accept that looking at things other than speed, as the Germans have done, will improve road safety. I would love to see more done in this country to tackle non-speed-related causes of crashes.
But I still maintain that speed is an important factor in road safety. Do you really disagree with that? Do you seriously think that speed cameras cause accidents?
Complain about this comment
DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
"Funny how the speedophile lobby say on the one hand that speed cameras are just a revenue raising measure, but on the other hand they cost too much money. You can't have it both ways."
When did I say that cameras are just a revenue raising measure ?
I've just re-read all of my posts on this topic and I have never even suggested that this is the case; in fact in my post at #38 I give details about how cameras actually cost the local authority & Police force money that could be better spent elsewhere.
I know you like spurting out your pre-prepared bullet points but you really need to make sure I've made a point before you try to respond to it with one of them.
I also seem to have gone from being someone who has been brainwashed by the motoring lobby to actually being the motoring lobby, quite a promotion for a few hours work.
Just so you know and can stop throwing around childish names;
I have a clean driving license; I have never been fined or gained penalty points for speeding or any other motoring offence.
I do enjoy riding & driving at high speed but that's why I bought a track-bike and an off-road motocross bike as well as being a reason why my friends and I go to our local go-kart track so often, I enjoy going fast so I go to places where I can go as fast as I want. If I want to go fast or start racing with people then I go and do it on the track.
I take riding very seriously and that's why I took the advanced rider training as well as getting several hours of training from a professional racing rider each year.
I dislike speed cameras, not because I want to break the speed limit but because I think they are draining resources that could be better spent on other measures as well as the part they play in the governments "Speed Kills" campaign that in itself fails to address the variety of causes of accidents on our roads in favour of speed enforcement.
It's the equivalent of closing the cat flap on a burning house to stop air getting to the fire while completely ignoring the exposed electrical wiring and leaky gas main that caused the fire in the first place.
The overwhelming majority of accidents are not caused by excessive speed, they're caused by poor or dangerous driving as well as the poor design of our roads, their markings & the furniture that clutters them up.
We could prevent many of the accidents that happen on our roads by improving their design, as has already been pointed out, the RAC claim motorists are paying over 40 billion pounds in taxation a year, why then do we not have the best roads in the world ?
Why are we driving on roads with poor surfaces, pot-holes, cracks and all of the other faults on them ?
"But I still maintain that speed is an important factor in road safety. Do you really disagree with that?"
Yes, it is a factor but not an important one. Its certainly far less important than road design, driver training & several other factors.
"Do you seriously think that speed cameras cause accidents?"
Some of them, yes.
Complain about this comment
#44:
"When did I say that cameras are just a revenue raising measure ?"
Actually, you're quite right there, you didn't. Many people taking similar lines of argument to yourself frequently say that, but I fully acknowledge that you didn't.
BTW, do you happen to know the statistics for how much speed cameras cost and how much is raised in speeding fines? I genuinely don't know the answer to that, and would be interested to know if there are any stats. I'm a bit confused now, as so many speedophiles say that cameras are just a revenue raising measure, it's a bit of a surprise to hear someone arguing against speed cameras on the grounds that they cost too much.
"I dislike speed cameras, not because I want to break the speed limit..."
Pleased to hear it. So, hand on heart, if there were no speed cameras, you'd never break the speed limit?
""Do you seriously think that speed cameras cause accidents?"
Some of them, yes."
OK, 2 follow up questions to that:
1. Do you think speed cameras, overall, cause more accidents than they prevent?
2. Given that you think only some speed cameras cause accidents, do you think it's possible to reliably predict in advance which cameras will cause accidents and which will prevent them, or is it just down to random variability?
Complain about this comment
#45
The Home Office Police Research Group did a cost/benefit analysis of traffic light & speed cameras that was published in 1996, they were meant to continue this and report back in 2001 & 2006 but as far as I can tell Mr Prescott cancelled these (although I can't find a confirmation of this, it was just something I remember reading in Private Eye). I've been unable to find a more recent UK study but the 1996 one is available as a PDF from:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs20.pdf
Some Key Statistics from then:
Traffic light cameras
The average fixed cost per traffic light site was just over 9,200 pounds and average recurrent costs were over 5,600 pounds per annum for each site
86% of the fixed costs for traffic light cameras were met by local authorities and the police service met 67% of recurrent costs. (Magistrates courts accounted for 25% of these recurrent costs.)
The average number of traffic light prosecutions per site was 123 with an average cost per prosecution of 46 pounds. (80% of these offences were dealt with by way of fixed penalty.)
Speed cameras
The average fixed cost per site for a speed camera was 12,500 pounds and average recurrent costs were just over 8,500 pounds per annum for each site.
68% of the fixed costs for speed cameras were met by local authorities and 20% were met by the police service. The police service also met 64% of the recurrent costs associated with speed cameras.
(Magistrates courts accounted for over 30% of these recurrent costs.)
Each site generated an average of 316 speed related prosecutions per annum, although there was considerable variation between sites. The average cost per prosecution was 27 pounds. (86% of these offences
were dealt with by way of fixed penalty.)
Some more recent information from Speed Cameras UK: http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/Gatso.htm
The cost of installing a Gatso speed camera is approximately 20,000 pounds, but can cost as much as 40,000 pounds if located in a rural location, as the system requires a 240v power supply.
The most recent figures I can find for revenue generated was 120 million pounds in 2003 but this doesn't take into account the cost of installation, maintenance, power, processing & administration.
I've heard that Simon Cowell pays more in income tax than is generated by fines from cameras.
Personally I'd be surprised if we ended up with a net profit considering all of the costs involved with the cameras and everything that is needed to keep them running, not to mention the costs of enforcement.
"So, hand on heart, if there were no speed cameras, you'd never break the speed limit?"
Almost everyone breaks the speed-limit some times, it's not unusual when driving in traffic to find I'm doing a few mph over the limit when I check my speedometer. If I'm doing more than a couple of mph over the limit I slow down but if, for example, I was doing 72 mph on the motorway then I wouldn't.
Can you, hand on heart, say you have never broken a speed limit ?
If you can then I would be amazed as even my mother, who is the most cautious driver I've ever met, breaks the speed limit sometimes although only unintentionally. Coincidentally she mentioned to me last Thursday that they'd reduced the limit on a local road to 40 mph, when I told her they'd changed it on Monday she was horrified as she had driven on it on Tuesday doing the old limit of 50 mph as she'd not noticed the sign had changed (they didn't put any signs up warning of the change until Thursday).
"Do you think speed cameras, overall, cause more accidents than they prevent?"
I'd say at the moment it is difficult to say as we've never had a study that looked at large numbers of sites before and after cameras where installed. There's also the effect of moving accidents instead of preventing them, not to mention the many other variables involved. As you said at #39 the evidence either way on speed cameras is of rather low quality and personally too low to base any decisions on.
"Given that you think only some speed cameras cause accidents, do you think it's possible to reliably predict in advance which cameras will cause accidents and which will prevent them, or is it just down to random variability?"
From what I've been told by friends in the Police the fixed Gatso cameras that are normally bright yellow cause a lot of accidents as many people spot them and break regardless of how fast they're going.
Traffic light cameras are also having a similar effect as people are breaking sharply as soon as the light turns amber.
Personally I prefer the system that the Spanish have been trying out, over there there are cameras that monitor your speed and if you are within the limit a digital sign shows a smiley face but if you're breaking the limit you get a frowny face.
I was over their with friends last year and we were having a competition to see who could get the most smiley faces and loads of the bikers we met said they were doing the same thing.
They also have a system in some towns & cities where if you break the limit the traffic lights you're coming up to change to red before you get there but if you're within the limit they stay green. This means people have stopped rushing everywhere as they know they've got a better chance of the lights staying green if they keep to the limit instead of racing between the sets of lights.
Both systems were focused on rewarding good behaviour instead of punishing bad behaviour and were therefore getting a lot of support from the local people as well as being a good way to change underlying attitudes to driving. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
It is so easy to blame speed for accidents and fatalities, but I agree with some of the posters here when they call for more responsible driving.
Speed kills, so they tell us. No, crashing kills. Hitting an inanimate object at 40mph can be enough, never mind ploughing into another vehicle or pedestrian. Responsible driving, irrespective of any other factor, will save lives.
I, like many other people after a days work, negotiate numerous roundabouts, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, light-controlled junctions, motorway, a fire-station, country lanes, a major hospital and a housing estate, not to mention other traffic, blue-lights, heavy goods vehicles, public transport and pedestrians, on my way home. It's a 6 mile journey.
Irresponsible driving (and walking, form the pedestrian angle) causes many accidents, but the standard of the roads is another major concern to me.
By standard, I don't just mean potholes and roadworks, but also design. Our roads are old, by design. They wind their way through villages and through town-centres. We have fewer fast roads than most other places I've visited, and so through traffic is diverted into town centres and villages in many cases.
The amount of distractions we have to suffer, as a driver, is getting worse all the time. On one part of my journey home, I have to cross a major cross-roads, go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes, and within 100M, need to get in the correct lane to turn left at the approaching roundabout while watching if the bus is going to stop, blocking the left lane, watch the 'zebra' crossing just AFTER the bus-stop but BEFORE the roundabout - which is a double roundabout and partially obscured by a large perennial in the centre - watching for traffic from my right while turning left onto a narrow road which is always totally jammed in the opposite direction, often being the cause of blue-lights from the hospital ambulance station being seen coming my way on my side of the jammed road necessitating an awkward reverse back to the roundabout behind me hoping that other traffic can hear the sirens and so will let me reverse out onto a main road to allow the ambulance through. And all this in the space of about 500 metres. And there's other traffic too. I'm sure most people have such a journey and take it in their stride, but when you put it down on paper, the amount of decisions you are making in such a short time seems ridiculous.
Then there are signs. 40. No Entry. No left turn. No right turn. Parking, 1/4 mile. Speed Cameras. Speed Humps. Turn left. Turn right. Too many signs.
Then they'll place a zebra crossing on the entrance / exit at a roundabout. What's that about? You approach a roundabout, you see that the approach is clear, you see nothing approaching from your right, you slow, but not to stop, you can see it's safe to proceed, so you turn left at the r/a and bang, there's a zebra with mum and 2 kids bimbling across.
Roads are inherently dangerous places, but too much control has tipped the balance. There needs to be rules on the road, but there needs to be an allowance for common sense too. Have you ever noticed how the junction works that much better when the traffic lights are out? People give way and are generally more polite, I find.
Like many aspects of British life these days, we are micro-managed and the decision making process is handled by rules and regulations, not common sense any more.
Complain about this comment
#46:
Re costs and income from cameras, it sounds like the figures are a little hard to pin down. I've always assumed that they are a net financial benefit to the public purse, but maybe I'm wrong about that. I don't know. Sounds like you don't know for sure either. But if it's true that they cost money, then I would agree that putting them on every stretch of road would be daft: prioritising them to where they are likely to prevent the most accidents would be a sensible way to go.
"Almost everyone breaks the speed-limit some times, it's not unusual when driving in traffic to find I'm doing a few mph over the limit when I check my speedometer. If I'm doing more than a couple of mph over the limit I slow down but if, for example, I was doing 72 mph on the motorway then I wouldn't."
Well, that sounds pretty responsible to me. Perhaps I've misjudged you, old chap. I've heard a lot of people arguing against speed cameras, and until now, every single one of them used whatever arguments they had simply as a front for their real argument, which is that they simply want to be able to break the law and get away with it. But if that doesn't apply to you, then I apologise for calling you a speedophile.
(BTW, no, I can't say I've never broken the speed limit ever at all, but I very seldom exceed it by more than 1 or 2 mph).
"I'd say at the moment it is difficult to say as we've never had a study that looked at large numbers of sites before and after cameras where installed."
Did you read the BMJ study I referenced? I'd say that meets your criteria. That's why I believe that speed cameras prevent crashes.
"From what I've been told by friends in the Police the fixed Gatso cameras that are normally bright yellow cause a lot of accidents as many people spot them and break regardless of how fast they're going."
Well, that may or may not be true. Being told by some friends in the Police doesn't sound like very reliable data to me. But maybe someone should do some proper research, and rethink the bright yellow ones if they turn out to be as you think.
The Spanish stuff sounds interesting. I'd be interested to know whether there's any research that backs up the smiley faces idea. The phasing of the traffic lights just sounds self-evidently such a good idea, it's hard to know why it's not done more often.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS