Speed cameras don't cut accidents...probably

The words "I told you" spring to mind at this morning's news on speed cameras - or "safety cameras" as their advocates like to dub them:

Ministers fear that thousands of cameras have served only to raise millions from motorists, rather than improve safety.

The findings, from an initial sample of 75 local authorities, will prompt the Government to call on every council to publish detailed information on each speed camera site, including accident rates and how much has been raised in fines.

Ministers hope that local authorities will succumb to pressure to remove the controversial devices if the information does not demonstrate that accidents have been cut. 

Oh dear! It seems that the people who advocate putting cameras on every street corner were wrong and that folk like me who said that driver training is more important that on street management were right.

I'm sure we've not heard the last of this - just as with CCTV (where the Home Office knows it doesn't reduce crime), the enthusiasts for lucrative speed cameras will be out there shroud waving. And ignoring the evidence.

....

Nothing is that straightforward, Johann - the case of speed cameras

As ever with reporting on research we can be easily lulled into accepting the headline figures and the results that appear always to substantiate the view of authority. So it is with speed cameras. Here’s the oft wrong, Johann Hari on the subject:

We have the independent academic studies. We have reams of them. They all say the same. To cite the most detailed: a four year on-the-ground scientific study by University College London* found that when you set up a speed camera, the number of people killed in that place falls by 17 percent, over and above the general decline in road accidents that is happening everywhere because of improving technologies like airbags. That’s 100 people saved from death every year nationwide, the equivalent of stopping two 7/7s, or six Dunblaine (sic) massacres. Oh, and over 4000 people saved from serious injury.

Case closed says our friendly left-wing journalist. You lot – you speeding, middle-class drivers, you budding Clarksons – you are in the wrong. Speed cameras are saving the lives of countless kiddies and grannies across the length and breadth of England. Or is this actually the case?

Well maybe not.

There are many possible reasons which may contribute to the recent large reductions in fatalities. The economic downturn and falling traffic levels for the last two years have played a part. Similar large falls in fatalities were seen in the recession in the early 1990s.

We should also note that there has been no observable change in the long-term trend of reducing pedestrian casualties. If speed cameras were so effective then we would expect to have seen an accelerating rate of decline. Especially given that many cameras are installed with the express intention of reducing pedestrian casualty risk.

The big contribution to the decline in casualty rates is in the numbers of 16-25 year olds killed:

The number of fatalities in accidents involving young car drivers fell by 11 per cent from 635 in 2008 to 564 in 2009 – a reduction of 71 deaths, out of a total fall of 316 road deaths between 2008 and 2009. This follows a 22 per cent fall between 2007 and 2008 – a reduction of 182 deaths.

All this comes from Department of Transport figures and studies – the same studies that report every year how the main contributor to road casualties is sloppy behaviour:

The contributory factor category driver/rider error or reaction was the most frequently reported category, involved in 69 per cent of all accidents reported to the police. It was the most frequently reported category for each severity of accident

And for pedestrians:

Pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 58 per cent of accidents in which a pedestrian was injured or killed, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 23 per cent. Eighteen per cent of pedestrian casualties had both of these factors reported.

It may be that speed cameras save lives. But the UCL research – for all its significance (and we’ll ignore that it was paid for by the advocates of speed cameras shall we?) focuses on point studies. And even at the most dangerous point in the country the numbers of injury accidents is too small for any trend not to be meaningless.

If we’re looking for causal factors in all this – for the thing that is causing the most accidents – then we must look at the numbers or men under 30 driving on our roads. For it is these young men who are most likely to cause and to be involved in serious accidents. If Johann Hari really cares so deeply about road safety that he thinks freedoms can be infringed – then he should be advocating banning young men from driving.


*See Mr Hari, it’s not hard to find the link to the research you reference and put it in your blog post. And save us folk half an hour or so trying to find it.

....

Why Government shouldn't be let loose with cameras

As I wander round the villages of Bingley Rural, I often hear calls for cameras - whether speed cameras, CCTV or throw-away ones for snapping dog poo. I do understand why people want these things to litter our roads and village centres - people do drive too fast, too often; children do gather "menacingly" outside the co-op, by the war memorial and in the rec; and too many locals seem to think the pavements are provided as a toilet for their pooch.

I've always been a tad cynical about the value of cameras as a means of preventing mildly anti-social and occasionally dangerous activity and I'm sure that cameras affect the way in which people behave. And as Northumbria's then road traffic chief put it:

"Speed cameras don't reduce casualties - they are just for revenue generation. They don't engage and they aren't going to send you a message in the post telling you were driving badly."

The problem isn't that speed cameras don't affect my behaviour - they do - but that their effect on general driver behaviour is erratic and unpredictable. Cameras also have a negative effect on route selection with drivers opting for camera-free routes often involving less safe rural roads or residential streets. And cameras make no allowance for weather, time, road conditions or traffic volumes. But boy do they generate a load of cash!

With CCTV there is silence about the growing evidence suggesting that, not only does the presence of cameras has little or no impact on crime and anti-social behaviour but it may even make our streets less safe. Even the Home Office - CCTV's most enthusiastic advocate - found little or no evidence of the cameras achieving their main aim of reducing crime.

What CCTV does appear to do is make us all feel a little safer, a little less vigilant and still more reliant on fallible technology to do the job of policing out streets. Us Councillors like CCTV because it seems we're doing something - and we get our pictures in the local rag "fighting crime" and responding to local fears!

There is a place for CCTV - it appears to reduce crime in car parks and has some value as a protector of private property. But in public places CCTV has now become almost ubiquitous - making us Brits the most spied on people in the western world. We need urgently to review why we use this camera technology, to look closely as research questioning its value and to reconsider whether intrusive surveillance is really the best way to improve driver behaviour, control anti-social kids and reduce the impact of Saturday night's drunken antics.

I fear that we risk becoming a sad, ineffective and voyeuristic society more interested in technological fixes than human intervention. Our obsession with cameras reflects this - the footage makes great telly but really doesn't reduce crime. We'd be better off investing in better lighting!