Justification for speed cameras in UK flawed - could it happen here?

[riffer]

Justification for speed cameras 'flawed'

By David Millward, Transport Editor

The speed camera programme has been thrown into disarray after the Government admitted its casualty calculations could be flawed.
The Department for Transport (DfT) justifies the use of more than 6,000 cameras across the country on the grounds that they cut road deaths and serious injuries.
But now these figures have been called into question and critics say this could undermine the entire programme, which brings in more than £100 million in fines every year.
In what speed camera critics are describing as an embarrassing about-turn, the DfT is to re-evaluate the way it works out the number of serious injuries reported on the roads.
It had relied on the figures gathered by police rather than hospital admissions but the discrepancy between the two has forced officials to look again.
According to the police, the number of serious injuries between 1996 and 2004 fell from 79.7 per 100,000 to 54. The corresponding figures from hospitals showed a rise from 88.8 to 90.1.
Whitehall had insisted the police figures were robust and that there was no need to use the hospital data.
But later this month the DfT will publish its findings on whether it should use hospital admissions figures as a basis for future policy.
"We have put our entire road safety programme into a box marked speed cameras," said Kevin Delaney, the Metropolitan Police's former head of traffic.
"The figures were the justification for the policy and if they are called into doubt the whole thing is undermined."
Speed cameras have been a crucial part of the Government's road safety strategy.
It set itself the target of cutting the number of people who were killed and seriously injured in 2010 to 60 per cent of the annual average between 1994-98.
Over the past decade police reports had been encouraging.
While the number of people killed on the roads has fallen dramatically since the advent of speed cameras, the number seriously injured has been a matter of debate.
The definition of serious injury has been unchanged since 1953 and sets a number of criteria, including whether the person is treated as an in-patient or has suffered a fracture or internal injuries.
A police officer has to make a judgement, often without knowing the extent of the injuries or whether the victim was admitted to hospital. However, the hospital figures are based on whether a doctor has decided to admit an individual.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed campaign and a critic of speed cameras, dismissed the DfT's decision to review the way in which it compiled its figures.
"The further investigation itself is an obfuscation," he said. "It is putting off the evil day when they will have to admit that their statistics and their targets have not been working for a decade."
A DfT spokesman insisted that the re-examination of the way the statistics are compiled did not undermine the speed camera programme.
"Hospital data only covers injuries, not fatalities. Road fatalities have fallen by 11 per cent since the mid-1990s," he said.
"Independent research shows that safety cameras help to save around 100 lives per year."

Speed camera figures:
Amount raised in fines by cameras in 2005-06 - £114.6m
Cost of running scheme - £99.5m
Surplus from cameras - £15.1m
Estimated number of cameras - 6000
Number of safety camera partnerships - 38
Points on a licence for being caught speeding - 3


Many of the justifications used in UK also apply here. And anecdotal evidence here would suggest that the injury figures would show a similar trend - however I don't have them at hand so I could be wrong (but I don't think I am).

It will be interesting to see how this story develops.

[Karma]

It's been a well known issue for a long time...

What has always happened is that accidents where speed cameras are placed have reduced, but they've simply moved 50m either side of the camera... accidents caused by people seeing the camera and instinctively braking, and accidents where people accellerate hard away once out of range of the camera.

The police figures don't take any of this into account.

[Scouse]

Jeez Riffer do you think you could edit it to make the font a bit bigger so as I dont have to strain me old eyes

[riffer]

Sheesh.

You'd think a big tough biker like yourself would have no worries reading little type...

Sorted.

[Bullitt]

Nothing will come of it, its been a flawed argument in every country for years but the governments of the respective countries seem quite happy with it.

(Much like Carbon Footprints really)