Nuxx:7p58f49n67ev658u752omb6qt1n8grp5sr@4ax.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.pipex.net!news.pipex.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <7p58f49n67ev658u752omb6qt1n8grp5sr@4ax.com> From: "Just zis Guy, you know?"  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Side Effects Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:37:14 +0100 Lines: 479 NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:38:35 -0500 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.146.155 X-Trace: sv3-KTmdJ7Zd1clqjd146LHYDQtOUuPc2qqtoDCd1HjbSYYDezVBFasvAmGw/3axX4Q0OanwNiXLEm/3w1E!ffBeioKBo8oV4adpodnr4vNFa/5cLEZGMFnMReODPBxsDXTGAKv+fm1J6iMj4sKeKrWgQv0++UeW!XW8KhAqh+fj8w7UEcVjmixM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@dsl.pipex.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@dsl.pipex.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.39 Bytes: 22603 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:671873

Look, lurkers! No-one here has *ever* so much as attempted to rebut a Is that how people who really thought that speed cameras didn't have side effects would behave? Or is it more what you'd expect from people who supported cameras for anti-motorist reasons, and didn't give a monkey's how many side effects there were (as long as enough of the public - like you - believed that cameras saved lives)?
 * single one* of the following list of side effects of speed cameras.

Why the eagerness to support cameras and "speed kills" policy despite not being able to counter the below? Why the crazed hatred of those who propagate such information (which should surely be easy to counter if it's as "barking" as suggested)? Are those things borne out of a scientific belief that cameras save lives, or the deranged anger of a group of people who are rapidly losing the battle to delude the public into going along with their nasty, spiteful, dishonest campaign against car drivers?

1. Road safety culture damage Although it is not much talked about in road safety, cultural values at very much at the heart of any safety system. However, in industrial safety, developing and maintaining a safety culture is considered central to reducing risk. Unfortunately nothing in modern policy is helping to build a sound road safety culture. The side effects listed here are actually causing severe damage to our once good road safety culture. Our pre- vious good safety culture was a central component in achieving the safest roads in the world.

Direct and indirect effects on driver quality

2. Drivers' general attitude to driving is worsened. One of the key factors that identifies a low risk driver is having a good attitude. A good attitude comes from taking responsibilities seriously and goes towards allowing safe margins for error. Drivers with a good atti- tude learn from their mistakes and don't take safety for granted. There's a significant risk that excessive speed enforcement is having a general negative effect on drivers' attitudes.

Systematic changes in priority

3. Reduced roads traffic policing Road traffic policing has been in steady decline in the speed camera era. It is sometimes argued that speed cameras have nothing to do with the accepted decline. We blame policy and point out that the same policy makers have caused the rise in cameras and the decline in roads traffic policing.

4. Speed management replaces road user quality management The advent of speed cameras steadily taking the place of traffic police has had the inevitable effect of changing the balance refined over the years by competent police forces to place greater emphasis on speed limit compliance.

5. Speed enforcement replaces sound road safety engineering. Slapping a camera up was almost the Pavlovian response to a couple of accidents in the same stretch of road. What used to happen pre-camera era – and what must happen again as we recover – is that road engineers examine the root cause of the accident or hazard and orchestrate a means to reduce/eliminate the hazard or make it much more visible.

Side effects of lower vehicle speeds

6. Risk Compensation 1 - motorists Drivers may follow closer or drive more aggressively to preserve personal subjective risk levels when forced to travel at a speed significantly lower than their optimum safe speed of progress for the conditions..

7. Risk Compensation 2 - motorists Drivers may pay ‘just enough’ attention to preserve subjective risk levels at any speed. If speeds are lower, then attention is lower. This is very dangerous if it is punctuated by periods of complete inattention.

8. Risk compensation 3 – motorists and pedestrians Slower traffic may create an illusion of safety. This may result in lower levels of care from drivers and espe- cially from pedestrians.

9. Stimulation effect Less stimulation for drivers (lower work rates / lower information rates) leads to more sleepiness and poorer concentration.

10. Longer exposure to accident risk due to longer journey times. Some accident risk on the roads is time-based. Where journeys take longer, the time exposed to danger is increased. This effect must be quantified and allowed for. It is especially relevant for "fell asleep at the wheel" type accidents, which are likely to be more prevalent due to reduced stimulation.

11. Reduced rate of driver skills acquisition Higher driving speeds are a ‘stressor’ that promotes experience learning. Without the stressor it is highly likely that vital experience based skills are acquired more slowly or not at all. Trained Police drivers are fre- quently heard to say: “You never really learn to drive until you are travelling well over the speed limit.” Of course, that’s not to say that people should be encouraged to driver well over the speed limit. However the effect is certain to be present to a degree in less extreme circumstances. Any reduction in the rate or extent of experience learning reflects directly in reduced average driver skills.

12. Dangerous overtaking of lorries due to ‘HGV40’ enforcement Having different speed limits for different classes of vehicles on the same stretch of roads, particularly sin- gle carriageway roads, and rigorously enforcing the speed limit of the slower vehicle types, leads to “trains” of the slower vehicles and frustration of the faster ones. This can lead to riskier overtakes than would oth- erwise occur, exacerbated further by the overtaking vehicle also having to be wary of blipping over the limit in the act of passing in case of a camera.

Effects of messages in support of cameras / reduced speeds

13. Responsibility effect 1 Reduced individual driver responsibility in general and for choice of speed in particular, leads to a reduced tendency for drivers to reduce speed when necessary.

14. Priority Distortion 1 Drivers' priorities are distorted. (i.e. speeds are set to legal limits rather than for safe driving reasons). We believe that millions of drivers have come to regard the speedometer as a barometer of safety; it is no such thing.

15. Priority Distortion 2 Maintaining a legal speed may sometimes instantaneously be more important to a driver than observing or dealing with road hazards.

16. False safety beliefs Messages that imply that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous come with a misleading counterpart – the implication that if exceeding the speed limit is dangerous, then observing the speed limit must be safe. It certainly isn’t true, but we believe that most of us are affected from time to time and millions are affected continuously.

17. Oversimplified messages Modern road safety messages tend to focus on very simple ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’, Stick to the speed limit. Wear your seatbelt. Don’t use your mobile phone. But road safety needs sophisticated messages such as. De- velop your skills. Learn to better manage risk. Take responsibility for your actions. To some extent speed camera policy is responsible for this oversimplification of road safety messages.

Practical side effects of camera enforcement

18. Driver distraction Drivers pay less attention to the road ahead because they pay much more attention to speed limit signs, the speedometer, speed cameras and indeed anywhere where there might be a speed camera. While this effect is small in any individual driver, it probably amounts to several percent of total national driver atten- tion. This is a huge hidden danger and, given the size of the population, it is certain that there will be cases where this low level but widespread distraction coincides with incident development.

19. Traffic displacement Traffic diverts to less safe roads due to enforcement on busy routes. Of particular concern here are danger- ous ‘thrill seeking’ groups of road users. It’s known that such use of the roads carries a high risk and it is only reasonable to assume that anyone intending to use our roads in their own vehicles in such a way will actively seek out camera free routes to get their thrills. So the traffic displaced by cameras includes highly risky groups. This may contribute very strongly to an illusion of speed camera benefit and a significant es- calation of risk elsewhere.

20. ‘Race-away’ behaviour It has been admitted at the highest level that crashes beyond speed camera sites sometimes increase as drivers or motorcyclists ‘race away’ from the speed camera site and ‘crash on the next bend’. It remains to be determined if this effect results primarily from anger or over-excitement.

Crashes caused by enforcement

21. The risk of accidents directly caused by enforcement. It is well known that, irrespective of speed of free travel, some drivers automatically brake or slow down sig- nificantly for a camera. If a speedo check reveals a speed within the limit, but is carried out at the same time as panic braking by the vehicle in front, the gap between vehicles can reduce to dangerous levels re- quiring severe braking and can result in loss of control and collisions.

22. Injuries caused by enforcement hardware – fixed cameras. Any street furniture is vulnerable to collision with any road user. Often we see bent traffic light support poles and street lights. Keep left signs are more vulnerable. The extra poles to support speed cameras are not exempt from such incidents. Given the additional reinforcement to avoid vibration and to render them vandal-resistant they are actually particularly dangerous.

23. Average speed cameras promote speedo obsession Average speed cameras were promoted to overcome the argument of the blip overtaking being more risky thanks to fixed “instantaneous” enforcement. The side effects are far worse though. People are more ob- sessed with their speedo in such zones, leading to dangerously low attention spans to the real hazards.

24. Average speed cameras promote close proximity driving It is highly visible in motorway road works sections overseen by SPECS average speed cameras that vehi- cle drive in close proximity to one another, both close following and long periods of side-by-side driving are extremely commonplace as vehicles match their speeds to the exact speed limit. Side-by-side driving in- creases risk because in the event of an incident there’s no escape space.

Legal and societal effects

25. Poorer public / police relationship. Road traffic policing has already had a clear effect on the public's perception of the police. Many law-abid- ing people only come into contact with the police over road traffic issues. The blunt nature of the law, with eroded presumptions of innocence, eroded right to silence and absolute offences frequently leads to the Police being seen in a bad light. This degrades the Police’s ability to deal with all crime, and especially means that Police road safety messages are regarded with less respect. One particular strong contributor are the frequent cases reported in press where it is perfectly clear that the Police cannot obey the speed limit laws either (when off duty, or otherwise unable to avail themselves of their speed limit exemption).

26. Reduced respect for law. The vast majority of UK drivers regularly exceed the speed limit, and this includes the legislators, Police (without an emergency need) and court officials. When a citizen faces conviction for a speeding offence he knows full well that those responsible for convicting him are regularly guilty of the same offence. The hypo- critical application of the law brings it into serious disrepute and the ultimate consequences can only be guessed at. There are many ways that reduced respect for the law can bring new dangers to our roads.

27. Reduced confidence in official road safety messages The false safety messages surrounding the Department for Transport’s speed camera campaign result in substantial public disbelief and loss of confidence. The opportunity to communicate valuable road safety messages is being eroded.

28. Road user groups are set against one another Some cyclists and pedestrians are noticeably angry with car drivers because they have been persuaded that ‘exceeding the speed limit is dangerous’ and they know that exceeding the speed limit is common- place. This growing animosity is very bad for road safety which depends on co-operation and considera- tion.

29. Reduced interest in road safety and safe driving Modern road safety is onerous even to responsible drivers. They are being pushed away from an interest in the subjects, rather than invited in. People who are disinterested are less likely to acquire skills, less likely to investigate the subject and less likely ultimately to perform well. While it will certainly be very difficult to determine the road safety consequences of such effects, it should be obvious that they are real and that they are negative.

30. Journeys take longer and cost more. Most speed limits and speed limit enforcement has little effect on journey times, but there are important ex- ceptions. One such exception is unnecessary enforcement of the HGV 40mph speed limit on single car- riageway trunk routes, which can add as much as 35% to journey times for both HGVs and other road users. This loss of economic efficiency ultimately means less money in the economy to invest in schools and hospitals.

31. Reduced incentive to train drivers better. The more we characterise drivers as “incompetents who must be regulated” the further we move away from the previous “individual responsibility” system of road safety that served us so well, providing excellent re- ductions in road casualties until about 1993. The present course of speed reduction tends to lead us to ne- glect the basic sound idea of obtaining improved safety standards by training to improve drivers’ attitudes and road safety culture.

32. More lawless drivers - false number plates, improper registration, no insurance, car cloning etc. It's obvious that we already have drivers who neglect or evade registration and other legal requirements in order to evade modern dumb speed enforcement. Once they have decided to behave outside the law we suggest that they may well behave in a more dangerous manner, and for example, might be much less likely to stop and render assistance after an accident. They are hit and run drivers in the making.

33. More safe drivers convicted with possible loss of job / home etc. Whatever way you look at figures, it is clear that the vast majority of modern speeding offences are carried out by drivers who will never be involved in an excessive speed accident. One might reasonably infer that many cases of exceeding a speed limit take place in safe circumstances where no actual danger is caused. The Law has to be subservient to Justice. Applying the weight of law in these cases has serious conse- quences and sometimes results in loss of job. There probably already have been suicides triggered by the consequences of speeding convictions.

34. Honesty and accuracy in official road safety messages suffers ‘Speed’ has been deliberately demonised in support of speed camera policy. Huge claims are regularly made for crash reductions at speed camera sites, while the very important regression to the mean bias is never accounted for. Department for Transport insists on adding contributory factors for ‘inappropriate speed’ (a driver quality issue) to ‘speeding’ (a legal compliance issue) in order to exaggerate the impor- tance of legal speed controls, and to justify their flawed speed camera programme.

35. Heavy load on Courts and CPS Some solicitors have become notorious for clearing the name of certain celebrities who have been accused of speeding. This, along with websites such as Pepipoo encourages aggrieved motorists to become recal- citrant, raking over all details and having their day in court. The system is becoming overloaded.

36. Camera overuse is leading to legal challenges to laws. Useful laws may be lost as a consequence. Sophisticated members of society are mounting challenges to the law surrounding speed cameras. A par- ticular current example is the ongoing challenge to the requirement for a vehicle owner to identify the driver at the time of an alleged offence. At the time of writing we’re awaiting a verdict from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the famous ‘right to silence’ case. If Section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is lost due to this case the Police’s ability to act in serious cases of hit and run crashes will be re- duced.

37. Public danger, expense and resources consumed by speed camera vandalism Speed camera vandalism is common. It’s possible that cases of vandalism will directly endanger the public. It’s certain that such vandalism will take funds from the wider economy with a small effect on funding avail- able for public services including schools and hospitals.

38. A boom in number plate theft, car cloning and neglect of vehicle registration requirements One of the fastest growing motoring crimes is number plate cloning. A number plate from a car of the same type and colour as the target car is made up and fixed to the target car. Any camera flashes it collects go to the registered keeper of the original car to deal with. Camera based enforcement positively promotes this sort of activity as people come to realise that they might be better off working outside of the system. This in turn consumes significant Police resources which are then unavailable for road safety work.

Evaluation side effects

39. Joy riders, drunks, reckless and lawless drivers unaffected. If we get to a point where we have figures to extrapolate road safety improvements from speed reductions, it must be remembered that not all road users will be affected by enforcement schemes. Joy riders are in an innocent motorist’s car – camera paperwork goes to an entirely innocent person. Drunks are far less likely to be stopped as a result of the substantially reduced police presence. Reckless drivers who operate outside the law – cloned plates and throwaway cars – will not be touched by the cameras.

40. Authorities are reluctant to risk ‘proving themselves wrong’. You would think that the side effects listed here would have been considered and evaluated by the authori- ties. But they have not been. We believe that this can only be because they consider that the results may prove that flagship road safety policies are ill founded and have failed.

Conclusions

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 re- duce as expected can only be ‘because drivers are getting worse’. The question of why drivers are get- ting 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 nei- ther 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)