PR456: Speed Camera side effects research cancelled

news: STRICT EMBARGO: 00:01am Wednesday 14th March 2007

A freedom of information request confirms today that Department for Transport
have cancelled their planned speed camera side effect research project. Safe
Speed called the cancellation of this most important research "astonishing" and
"grossly irresponsible".

We welcomed the research project when is was announced in 2005,[1] although
even then it was really over a decade late.

Now that DfT's research has been cancelled, we present our analysis in a MAJOR
NEW REPORT.[2] Our report lists 40 different side effects arising from speed
cameras and the policies that support them. Some of the side effects are
immediately recognisable to any driver. Others are more subtle, but no less
dangerous for that.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Our analysis is clear and confident and takes
proper account of all known science, statistics and systematic analysis. Our
confident conclusion is that speed cameras are making road safety much worse
and must be scrapped immediately."

"It is astonishing and grossly irresponsible that Department for Transport has
cancelled their important 'side effects' research. I can only imagine that they
were scared about the likely results and would rather save face than save
lives."

"I would love to see a Department for Transport point by point response to our
new report but of course they cannot properly respond because they have
cancelled their research."

"I recommend that anyone who cares about road safety should sign our highly
ranked 10 Downing Street petition to scrap speed cameras:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scrapcam - at the very least it will help to force
out the facts that Department for Transport would rather ignore."

Idris Francis, originator of the freedom of information request said: "It is
alarming to realise that the DfT and those responsible for the Camera
Partnership scheme even now remain unable to understand that draconian
enforcement of speed limits can have adverse as well as beneficial effects."

"That they failed even to consider these entirely predictable effects before
authorising cameras in 1992 or the Camera Partnerships in 2000 is bad enough,
but cancellation of the long overdue investigation even before it started
raises further serious questions about the competence of the DfT."


The CONCLUSIONS of the new Safe Speed report are as follows:

1. The best estimate of the life saving benefit of speed cameras stands at
about 25 lives per year. If more than 25 lives per year are being lost due to
side effects, then speed cameras are increasing the death toll on British
roads.

2. None of the side effects have been officially studied. This is almost
unbelievable because we have had speed cameras on British roads since 1992 and
it is perfectly clear that there is a wide range of side effects.

3. Drivers gain experience particularly over the first decade after passing a
driving test. During this time their average crash risk falls by at least a
factor of ten as they gain experience. This subtle process of skills
development is potentially extremely vulnerable to false beliefs and distorted
safety priorities.

4. The 'smoking gun' evidence that the side effects have damaged road safety is
that neither road deaths nor road crash hospitalisations have fallen as
expected. In fact, if policy had done nothing and earlier trends had continued
we'd have about 1,200 fewer road deaths each year by now.

5. Several recent studies propose that the only possible explanation for the
failure of road deaths to reduce as expected can only be 'because drivers are
getting worse'. The question of why drivers are getting worse has not been
officially addressed. We are certain that 'bad policy' is responsible for
making drivers worse through side effects.

6. It is known that single vehicle crashes are on the increase, including
typical 'failed to negotiate bend' crashes. These are very much the sorts of
crashes that we would expect to increase if driver quality was falling.

7. Department for Transport claims that road safety is meeting their targets,
but this assessment depends entirely on the recorded beneficial trend in
recorded serious injuries. Hospitalisation records do not show this trend at
all. Road deaths do not show this trend.

8. Speed cameras are blunt instruments (at best) which have changed many
things. They have changed the things that drivers pay attention to and the
things that they regard as important. They have changed the way that our roads
are policed and damaged the relationship between police and public. They have
brought the law itself into a degree of disrepute.

9. Speed camera policy has failed. The overall road safety results show very
disappointing trends with neither deaths nor hospitalisations falling
significantly.

10. The only 'control group' study available of speed cameras on British roads
shows an increase in crash risk associated with speed cameras at speed camera
sites. (TRL595)

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

[1] Safe Speed welcomed Side Effects research (May 2005):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/41


[2] Safe Speed major 'side effects' report.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf
You are hereby authorised to quote from the report in whole or in part, with
acknowledgement to source.



Full text of BRAND NEW DfT FoI response (not yet published to DfT web site):
(The request was placed by Idris Francis)
======================================================
7 March 2007

Dear Mr Francis,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000· REQUEST F0002841

I am writing to confirm that the Department has now completed its search for .
the information which you requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
on 8 February.

The information that you request relates to a research project which was
originally intended to investigate the wider effects of speed cameras.

In your request of 8 February you ask:

1/ The original title of this investigation into side effects of speed cameras.

The title of the originally intended research project was, Mechanisms of change
in accident occurrence and driver behaviour brought about by speed cameras.

2/ The original remit of this investigation and subsequent amendments.

The Department's call for expression of interest in road safety research
document, which appeared in the OJEU (Official Journal of the European Union)
and The Guardian, and was also published on the Department's web site in May
2005, stated:

There is a need to establish the broader effects of speed cameras away from
specific camera sites, and in particular to investigate whether the use of
speed cameras causes a migration of accidents to other locations. The research
would investigate accidents and speeds at locations away from camera sites by
direct observations and by assessing both exposure and changes in risk.

Research is also needed to demonstrate whether improvements in safety
performance at speed camera sites arises from the presence of the cameras, or
from their deployment at accident cluster locations where safety performance
could be expected to improve without treatment: the 'regression to mean
effect'.

3/ Why this investigation, announced in May 2005 was dropped.
4 The remit of the alternative proposal undertaken instead by TRL.
5/ On whose authority the original investigation was dropped.

As Robert Baker explained in his letter to you dated 9 November 2006 (Ref
F0002518), the Department's 2005/06 research programme included an intention to
commission new research into understanding the wider mechanisms of change in
accident occurrence and driver behaviour brought about by safety cameras. The
research was to help improve our understanding of the wider effects of safety
cameras.

The scope of this research was later reviewed in the light of the independent
four year evaluation of the National Safety Camera Programme in England and
Wales and the announcement on 15 December 2005 that safety cameras are to be
integrated into the wider road safety toolkit and Local Transport Plan process
from 1 April 2007.

With the agreement of the Department's Chief Scientific Adviser it was
concluded that the originally intended research would be replaced by research
looking at the wider effects of cameras and other speed management measures as
part of a broader research project aimed at providing highway authorities with
guidance to help them to monitor and evaluate speed management programmes and
strategies.

The replacement research, Research to develop guidance for highway authorities
on how to monitor and evaluate speed management interventions, programmes and
strategies, has the three principal objectives:

To produce a framework to enable authorities to:

* to compile and analyse data relevant to speed management; and o select speed
management interventions, programmes and strategies that are appropriate and
meet local needs;

* To outline a methodology that will enable authorities to formulate, monitor
and evaluate the effectiveness of speed management interventions, programmes
and strategies;

* To demonstrate how this can be used to inform the development and delivery of
future programmes and strategies.

It is intended that the guidance considers as part of the monitoring and
evaluation process known issues including differences between:

o rural and urban situations;
o network and link effects;
o short and long term effects;
o local and wider (i.e. 'migration') effects.

6/ What work if any was done on the original proposal before it was dropped.
6/ What results if any were established before it was dropped, whether within
the remit or not.

The originally intended research was not commissioned. No results were
therefore established.

7/ Whether any other work assessing these adverse side effects is in hand or is
planned, and if so when.
8/ If not, why not.

No further evaluations are currently being considered. The independent four
year evaluation of the National Safety Camera Programme confirms that safety
cameras continue to be highly effective in reducing speeding, accidents and
casualties at camera sites. The report's authors also concluded that safety
cameras continue to make a significant and valuable contribution to the
reduction of casualties at camera sites even after taking account of potential
regression to mean effects.

If you are unhappy with the way the Department has handled your request or with
the decisions made in relation to your request you may complain by writing to
me at the above address. Please see attached details of the" Department for
Transport's complaints procedure and your right to complain to the Information
Commissioner.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember
to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely,


Mark Magee Head of Speed Management Branch
======================================================



About Safe Speed
================

The Safe Speed road safety campaign is primarily the work of engineer-turned
road safety analyst Paul Smith.

Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 51, an advanced motorist and
road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience,
has carried out over 20,000 hours working on the campaign with well over 5,000
of those hours researching the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK
road safety. In addition to those 20,000 hours, Paul has funded to campaign to
the tune of £10,000.

We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything carried out by
any other organisation. Paul's surprising conclusion is that overall speed
cameras make our roads more dangerous. Paul has identified and reported a
number of major flaws and false assumptions in the claims made for speed
cameras, and the whole "speed kills" system of road safety.

The inescapable conclusion is that we should urgently return to the excellent
road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the World in
the first place. Far from saving lives, speed cameras are a dangerous
distraction.

Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits or appropriate enforcement
of motoring laws, but argues vigorously that automated speed enforcement is
neither safe nor appropriate.

Safe Speed is very slimly funded by voluntary contributions to the web site.
We are urgently seeking improved funding.

The Safe Speed web site contains more than 350,000 words of road safety
analysis and information. We are seeking publishers for 'the book of the web
site'.

It has turned out to be quite an amazing story and there are opportunities for
journalists and broadcasters to explore how all this came about, what it
means, and where road safety has gone so badly wrong.



Contact Safe Speed
================

description: Safe Speed road safety campaign
web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
email: psmith@...
telephone: > 01862 893030 < primary number
ISDN Audio: 01862 894772
mobile: 07799 045553

Location: North Scotland

We are always available for further comment on your road safety story.

To be added to our PR distribution list send an email to
psmith@... or visit our press pages at:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/prindex.html

Recent press releases (since November 2004) are automatically and immediately
uploaded to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR

=================================================================
Scrap Speed Cameras Petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scrapcam
=================================================================