PR469: Bogus DfT road safety figures cause Police complaint

news: for immediate release

Department for Transport figures provided to the House of Commons Transport
Select Committee led to massively erroneous conclusions about the relative cost
effectiveness of speed cameras and vehicle activated signs.

The errors are so great and so dangerous that it is hard to believe that they
were not wilful. Formal complaints have been lodged with the Police and the
Parliamentary Ombudsman alleging possible misconduct or misfeasance.

While the Transport Committee claimed that speed cameras were marginally more
cost-effective than vehicle activated signs, the truth is that vehicle
activated signs are around 50 times more cost effective than speed cameras.

Mr Idris Francis noticed the discrepancy and set about:

* Finding our where the errors had come from
* Ensuring that the Transport Committee was aware of the problem
* Discovering that the errors were all originated by Department for Transport
* Discovering that the Transport Committee were, at best, unconcerned.
* Finally issuing formal complaints because the errors will inevitably cause
scarce life saving resources to be misdirected with consequent loss of life.

In particular Department for Transport...

- used a sample figure of £7,000 for speed camera cost that was the cost of the
housing and DIDN'T INCLUDE THE £35,000 COST OF THE CAMERA ITSELF.

- used a sample 1998 figure of £14,000 for TWO EXPERIMENTAL PROTOTYPE vehicle
activated signs was presented as if it were the current cost of one sign..

- used data from JUST ONE SITE of each type for the comparison when data from
hundreds of site was available and would have been much more reliable and
accurate.

Paul Smith, founder of http://www.safespeed.org.uk , said: "I simply cannot
understand why Department for Transport remains firmly welded to their failed
and dangerous speed camera programme. They appear determined to defend it to
the ends of the earth, yet they must know that it was all an awful mistake."

"Department for Transport is not fit for purpose. They are not giving us the
life-saving road safety Policies we need - instead they are giving us wildly
wrong numbers, spin and bluff."

"When the errors were pointed out to the Transport Committee the indifferent
response was simply astonishing."

"Vehicle activated signs - used with care - are proven to be effective at
reducing vehicle speeds in areas of local danger. They do not come with the
dangerous side effects associated with speed cameras."

Idris Francis, retired engineer and road safety campaigner said: "No one at the
DfT, least of all Dr. Ladyman, should have believed for one moment that speed
cameras cost
£7,500 pa but flashing signs £14,000 pa. It beggars belief that they and the
Commons Transport Committee still refuse to accept that these figures were
grossly misleading and
that in reality signs are far more cost effective than cameras. Do they not
understand that people die on our roads when safety policy is based on bogus
data and analysis?
Heads must roll."

<ends>

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

Background information and extensive document archive on:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/vas.html


Contact Idris Francis:
=================
email: irfrancis@...
tel:01730829416
mobile: 07717222459


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
=================================================================