SPEED CAMERA ANNOUNCEMENT EXPECTED
14 December 2005 - Safe Speed

Rumours suggest that the Department for Transport will publish two importantdocuments this week, probably on Thursday or Friday.

The first document is the 4th year report of the speed camera partnership
scheme. Last year''s report has been widely criticised for failing to account
for ''regression to the mean effect'' (RTTM). See:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
and
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/heydecker2.html

This year''s report was expected in June, but has been greatly delayed. We
believe that the delay has been due to attempts to account for RTTM effect.
During the delay period DfT declared a moratorium on approving new speed
camera sites.

Safe Speed has no confidence that the new report will be accurate - after all
look at the track record. Last years report wildly exaggerated the benefits
due to neglect of RTTM effect. For the report to be meaningful and accurate,
it must fully account for ALL the following effects and side effects:

* Regression to the mean effects at speed camera sites
* Reduction in traffic at speed camera sites
* Benefits of other engineering treatments at or near speed camera sites
* Correction for long term trends
* Confidence interval of results (are they ''statistically significant''?)
* Are site sizes realistic to isolate camera effects?
* Side effects of speed cameras and speed camera policy including:
- driver attention diverted from road ahead towards speedo, speed limits and
cameras.
- damage to the police / public relationship
- loss of confidence in official road safety messages
- reduced driver responsibility for speed choice
- more effective policies neglected or replaced
- the cash distorts local objectives
- traffic displaced to less safe routes as drivers seek to avoid cameras
- automated enforcement encourages some to operate outside the law (more
improperly registered vehicles for example)
- drivers feel ''under pressure'' and don''t perform as safely
- heavy load on courts
- promotion of the illusion that driving within the speed limit will ensure
safety
(selected from a list of about 30 side effects)

They will probably call the new report: ''independent'' but it''s far from
independent because it will have been paid for by the DfT.

Until the various side effects are fully accounted for, claims of benefits ''at
speed camera sites'' are worthless. For example we might apparently save 100
lives at camera sites but ''irritant'' side effects may cost 1,000 lives
elsewhere. Safe Speed believes that road deaths would have been reduced to
about 2,000 per years by now if it wasn''t for bad policy founded on speed
cameras.

The second document is the 2006/7 handbook for camera partnerships. Press
reports suggest that there will be substantial changes in the way funds will
be used, with the Sunday Times newspaper suggesting that the cap on new camera
sites will remain.

Reports also suggest that speed camera cash will be used for wider road safety
purposes such as junction improvements. Safe Speed warns that it is highly
dangerous to tie necessary road safety improvements to speed camera cash.

One item to watch out for is if the ''inverted'' rule for speed camera placement
remains. Up until now speed cameras have had to be placed where many vehicles
are speeding. While this sounds superficially attractive, it has actually
prevented speed cameras from being deployed in places where it is dangerous to
exceed the speed limit. See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules/html No wonder
we have all been complaining that speed cameras are in the wrong places. They
are all in locations where it is normally ''safe to speed''.

www.safespeed.org.uk

More News
  For December 2005
  From Safe Speed
  For Safety
  Driver247.com Home Page