Cameras-Against

Tom Heavey read SafeSpeed's document "Speed Cameras - The Case Against" which summarises Paul Smith's opinons on speed cameras, including his notorious assertion that cameras are responsible for thousands of deaths since their inception. As I have noted elsewhere, this claim is problematic, involving as it does the idea that the supposed effect applies mainly to motorcyclists, and that the supposed effect is visible only on those roads which are least likely to have cameras (e.g. motorways).

Here is Tom's commentary, with some annotations (in italics) and charts from me.

Introduction
The following report has been made in response to the report entitled ‘Speed Cameras – The Case Against’. The report appears on the ‘Safe Speed’ web site, which is a site, dedicated to the removal of ‘Road Safety Cameras’.

The term ‘Speed Camera’ has been used throughout this report, but only when reference has been made to comments made within ‘Speed Cameras – The Case Against’. Where I have entered my own dialogue I have referred to them by their correct name of ‘Road Safety Cameras’. When reading this report please take both expressions to mean the same thing.

A response is required, as the claims made in the report are erroneous and dangerous. The report ‘Speed Cameras – The Case Against’ has been well constructed, but it uses a mixture of unsound and poor logic, which is interspersed with some occasional good sound common sense. This in my view has made the poor content of the report acceptable to individuals who are only too willing to support such unsafe ideology.

My report is based on twenty years of experience, my own research, common sense, 15 years experience as a practising advanced driver and 5 years observing driver behaviour and skills as a Driving Instructor.

I have grown very concerned at the public attitude to Safety Cameras over the years, and the idea that they cost lives rather than save them, abhorrent. I am also very concerned about some of the high profile support that these notions get. Support from influential people whose gullibility and openness to suggestion, has led to irresponsible support for such campaigns.

As stated, the report is based upon my own opinion and experience, and any feedback to anything I have said will be welcomed and respected. Having said this, my report is an attempt to get a message across, on the basis of which, you can form your own opinions.

The report attempts to dispel myths and explain in a common sense approach that safety camera’s work, and why they work. My conclusions are, and always have been independent of any other sources. I do support road safety cameras and yet I do not want to see them increase anymore than those in opposition to them. I believe there is a better way to see them disappear from the roadside. How, will be revealed within the pages of this report.

The whole report deals with the claims made within the pages of ‘Speed Cameras – The Case Against’. This report can be found on the ‘Safe Speed’ web site. For the purposes of my report I have decided to tackle the issues raised one by one and have provided a response where appropriate.

The first section deals with Safe Speeds opinions on how Safety Cameras have been Introduced and the thought process behind those decisions.

Tom Heavey Jan 2005

1. Introduction of road safety cameras shoddy.
The Government have long realised the relation between poor use of speed and road safety. This is why the introduction of Road Safety Cameras has been a blessing for all road users.

Since their inception they have successfully prevented the deaths of over 1200 men women and children, and they have also prevented the serious injury of over 10,000 more. This comes as a saving to the economy of £2.2 billion, this in contrast to the £150m they have so far cost to install. The only conclusion anyone can arrive at is that they are nothing less than an overwhelming success.

With these safety devices having been paid for by our higher risk driver they have not yet cost the tax payer one single penny.

In 1993 after their inception there was an immediate drop of over 10% in the number of road traffic casualties. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the majority of these were down to the effects of Road Safety Cameras.

However as the campaigns against this life saving equipment has grown the numbers of deaths has levelled out and the positive effects of ‘Road Safety Cameras’ has reached a plateau. However, even at this plateau, the number of actual deaths on the roads is 20% lower than they were in 1992.

The placement of Safety Cameras is far from simplistic. However they have been placed in areas where they will obviously have great effect. In the main within built up areas. And the group that has benefited the most from the positioning of these cameras, has been the pedestrian.

The pedestrian is by far the most vulnerable road user, with nothing to protect them, any contact they have with a vehicle, stands the highest risk of proving fatal. So this is obviously the group who need the most protection.

The most vulnerable amongst them are the under 15’s and the over 60’s. You can draw your own conclusions as to why this is. But any pedestrian hit by a vehicle is going to suffer an elevated degree of injury, regardless of vehicles that have been engineered to be more pedestrian friendly. Possibly the pedestrian will only break on leg instead of two, or may only suffer brain damage instead of death. I will touch more upon this area later in the report.

The remaining cameras have been placed along some of our more dangerous roads. This then is an attempt to stop the motorist from killing other motorists and their families. These are roads that have been identified as roads that many of our ‘normal motorists’ are incapable of driving down safely. Impatience and overconfidence in their abilities certainly increases the danger to us all on the road. But if a like minded driver is approaching from the opposite direction at the same time, the risk factor is bordering on a certainty. The many times this normal driver has gotten away with it, has only fuelled their confidence. But it has only been luck that has so far prevented tragedy.

So, cameras have been placed along these less pedestrian areas, to prevent us, from killing each other. ''The above chart illustrates what Tom is saying - note how the pedestrian casualty figure has declined. Note also how powered two wheelers (PTWs) are getting worse, and other (motorised) users exhibit a flat trend in recent years (evidence of risk compensation?).'' ''As an illustraiton: this is how child pedestrian injuries have changed over the last decade. Note that KSI has declined more sharply than all injuries - a reduction in the severity ratio. This coincides with a growth in both speed cameras and 20mph limits. According to Smith's thesis - that camers cost lives - these injuries, which mostly occur on the types of roads most heavily covered by cameras - shoud show an increase, not a decrease. The opposite is true: the spread of cameras and other speed restriciton measures has coincided with a welcome reduction in the number and severity of child injuries. The fatality trend (pink line) is based on small numbers and is included for completeness only.''

2. Politicians, campaigners, scientists opinions based on blind faith and over simplified assessment of reality.
This group of people have a unique awareness of road safety issues. The politicians have access to years of research by academics and experts in road safety. Yet there are differences in professional estimates as to what degree excessive and inappropriate speed really plays.

It has been estimated to be between 7% and 30%. I personally believe this percentage figure to be more central of the two estimates.

Excessive or inappropriate speed makes a contribution to all road traffic collisions. In some cases it will certainly be the sole cause of the collision. But in all cases it is the factor that determines the severity of the collision and the damage inflicted.

All of the above groups aim to tackle road safety from different angles, but in many cases they reach the same conclusions. That speed is a major problem that needs to be dealt with a priority.

Scientists analyse statistical data and interpret this into recommendations. Campaigners deal with more local individual issues. Their science is based on what they have actually witnessed, what has or could happen, and what they can do to prevent it from happening or happening again. Many of these people have suffered first hand because of the actions of vehicle users, both normal drivers and extreme alike.

Their views are certainly not over simplified. They have merely identified the issue that has the most detrimental effect on road safety, excessive and inappropriate speed.

3. Country infested with cameras.
The country is certainly not yet infested with Safety Cameras. They have been placed, as explained earlier in areas of necessity. They have only been placed in areas where a demand has been created for them. Areas of heightened risk.

Most drivers know these as ‘Accident Black Spots’. This term is one of the most ridiculous motoring related expressions to have ever been associated with motoring.

The ‘Black Spot’ has become not something that we recognise as it should be, but has now become an excuse for poor driving skills.

What is an ‘Accident Black Spot’? It is an area where the nature of that particular piece of road requires a little more care in its execution. These can be constructed of dips, bends, junctions, limited visibility, crossings, schools or any combination where a reduction in speed would be prudent. Those whose hazard recognition skills are somewhat lacking will fail to recognise the inherent danger and increase their risk accordingly. Any collisions within these areas, are because of poor driving skills and not because of the geography of the road.

This is why safety cameras are so necessary. The majority of motorists may not exceed speed limits carelessly or selfishly but irresponsibly. They fail to recognise the danger of a given situation and drive through it at an inappropriate speed. When something happens they do not have the time to react and someone gets hurt or killed.

In conclusion to this section of the report, the infestation of cameras should continue until they take control of the current danger presented to all of our road users by unsafe speeds.

4. Engineering and Medical Care Improvement.
The reasons why we there have been improvements in engineering has been seriously overlooked. Medical care will always improve as new methods, technologies and cures are developed. This should have no bearing what-so-ever on road traffic casualties. Our medical profession have the job of cleaning up the mess that motorists make. If they manage to save a life because of advancement, then great. But the simple fact is that even if more people survive a collision they will have still suffered and may continue to suffer for the rest of their lives. The issue is not one for our medical miracle workers to try and repair, but for us to try and prevent in the first place. Far better to aim fatality reduction on what the motorist can do rather than what the hospital can.

Regarding our engineers, they to are doing their part to reduce the number of casualties created on our roads. The creation of ABS, side impact bars, air bags, crush zones and pedestrian friendly bonnets and windscreens. Fantastic innovations which have certainly played their part in reducing the numbers of people killed or injured.

But why were these innovations created in the first place? Because the manufacturers from Government pressure know that if we give the average motorist a car then 3500 of them each year are going to kill one someone with it. 35000 more will be seriously injured, 350,000more will be slightly injured and over 3,000,000 will suffer damage to our vehicles. This means that we all have a 1 in 10 chance of being involved in a collision. The severity of which is largely left to chance.

Motor manufacturers know this and have created these improved safety aspect on our vehicles because WE have created the demand for them with our sub standard driving practices. The costs of these devices that have cost millions to develop have been passed back to the motorist. Hence this is why the current cost of a vehicle is so high.

Vehicle safety is not dictated by the level of features included in a vehicle, but how a vehicle is driven. This is the measure of a real motorist, the standard by which he drives. The real motorist does not need these features to protect other road users; they need these features to protect themselves and their families from everyone else.

5. Safety Cameras – Bad road safety policy.
The claim that Safety Cameras are a bad road safety policy, I believe, has now been refuted. The incidence of safety cameras should continue to increase until either driving standards have improved or the length and breadth of the country are covered.

I for one do not wish to see this blight on our landscape, but I would rather see our landscape blighted than the continuance of unnecessary death and injury.

6. One of the safest road safety records in the world (used to be the safest but is stalling)
We cannot be proud of a road safety record just because it is one of the best in the world. This is no justification for the removal or damping down of any good road safety initiative. We should be pleased that progress is being made and initiatives are being developed that are having a positive effect on casualty rates. In this respect we can consider ourselves to be amongst the best in the world. But there is still a very long way to go. Casualty rates are unacceptable and unless driving standards improve, the initiatives born from those with a real desire to reduce human tragedy, must continue.

The education of drivers is one of the most important aspects of general road safety. Driving Instructors have been trained to the highest possible standards and the knowledge they have, they pass onto their pupils. I also believe that people are capable of driving far better than they actually do. If I were to put a driver into a test situation it is without doubt that their standard would improve. I believe that this improvement would be in the region of around 20%. This is not a theory because I have seen it actually happen.

What this means is that poor driving standards do not arise from poor tuition, after all, all motorists have had to reach the same good standard before being issued with a driving licence. Poor driving is down to individual choice. If the average driver maintained the standard they had on passing the driving test then we would have casualty levels of 90-95% less than they are today. Only in the region of 5% of collisions are genuine accidents. The remainder are due to driver error, or a poor driving standard. The only ones really to suffer genuine accidents are the practicing advanced drivers on the roads. If they are involved in a collision it is a 90% - 95% certainty that they will not be at fault.

Remember that the driving test is the minimum standard of driving to achieve before being allowed to drive alone on the road. Many of us do nothing to improve that standard, so all the years of experience we gain count for very little. Years of deviating from the rules only serve to make a poor standard more comfortable.

7. Of the accidents that do take place, very few are actually caused or contributed to by ‘normal motorists’ exceeding a speed limit.
This statement may be very true but it has been presented in a very misleading way. Normal motorists are responsible for the vast majority of collisions (these collisions are not accidents as they have been caused through driver error as opposed to an unavoidable circumstance).

The collisions that they have been involved in, few may be attributed to excessive speed. A great many more will certainly have been attributed to inappropriate speed.

But what are the causes of collisions? The answer to this again reverts back to driver standard. The average driver has allowed their standard to slip. The depth of this slip is determined by the individual alone. This reduction in standard effects many areas of driving. Some of which being, inappropriate and excessive speed, poor steering, late or harsh braking, over accelerating, poor observations, poor mirror work, lack of knowledge, bad attitude, lapses in concentration, impatience, over confidence, poor or no indication, incorrect road positioning and the list goes on. Most motorists have many of these faults and more in their driver make up. Any one of these errors alone would be sufficient to fail the most basic driving test. Yet our qualified drivers develop these faults as a matter of routine. Any of these faults increase the risk a driver poses to road safety and many of our drivers possess multiple combinations of them.

This is the reason why safety cameras are so important, because if a driver’s speed is reduced the damage they inflict will be lessened at a reduced speed.

So cameras are not only a device to control speed, they also allow a certain measure of compensation for the myriad of other errors the average drive makes.

The excessive or extreme driver poses a far higher risk to road safety with the chance of some of them being involved in a serious collision is a virtual certainty. However, even though they are in the high risk group there are relatively few of them. It is likely that they represent less than 5% of our motorists and are responsible for probably 10% of our collisions. The remaining 90% of collisions can be contributed to our remaining normal motorists.

===8. The majority of normal motorists do not exceed speed limits carelessly or selfishly. Instead they exceed speed limits as a side effect of their skill and responsibility at setting an appropriate speed for the circumstances.=== Exceeding the speed limit is in itself a careless and selfish gesture. This displays a serious lack of awareness on the part of the normal motorist. Exceeding the speed limit reduces the time a motorist has to react to any given circumstance. Speed limits have been set according to the level of hazards that the road has. An assumption that it is safe to speed at certain times of the day or under certain traffic conditions is glaring confirmation that the motorist exceeding the speed limit is unaware that the unexpected may happen. There certainly are differences in the road conditions at all times of the day; however, the risk of an incident occurring is ever present. Just because a road appears empty, should not be mistakenly balanced by increasing speed. Dangers on the roads are ever present, and different dangers still exist when the road appears quiet. People still die at night.

As regards to people’s skill and responsibility, this is an area that has already been covered and has concluded that these are two of the areas where the ‘normal motorist’ is lacking.

9. Police routinely train officers on public roads at speeds of over 125mph because in the right circumstances it’s perfectly safe.
Police do not routinely train officers on public roads at over 125mph. The police select individuals who have the right basic characteristics. They are then trained in advanced skills. These skills initially cover normal advanced driving and then go onto high speed or pursuit skills. The reason for such training is that the police know that driving at these speeds is far from perfectly safe and only the highest standard of driver could ever be considered or able for such a task.

The vehicles used are regularly maintained to the highest of standards to minimise the risk of mechanical failure. Allowing untrained and undisciplined motorists this facility would be suicide.

===10. A review of the Driving Standards Agency’s hazard perception test videos provides clear indication of the ways that conflicts and accidents are routinely avoided. When there is a hazard ahead our drivers reduce speed and negotiate the hazard safely.=== If this were the case then we would not have collisions at so-called ‘Accident Black Spots’, So why are we still suffering 3500 deaths and 35,000 serious injuries on our roads every year. It is because our drivers are failing to see hazards and dangers that these are occurring.

===11. The sort of speed that delivers safety on our roads is not the same sort of speed that we seek to measure in miles per hour. An assumption that these sorts of speed are similar is the most fundamental flaw underlying the entire concept of improving road safety with speed cameras.=== There is clearly a misunderstanding of how safe speed is perceived here.

The speed limits posted on all roads are the safe maximum speed that a motorist is allowed to travel at. They must then make their judgement of what the appropriate speed should be depending on the road, traffic and weather conditions within that limit. Some of these judgements are fatally wrong. If the excessive speeders stuck to the speed limits they would cause fewer collisions, if the inappropriate speeders drove at an appropriate speed, they too would cause fewer collisions. Those with the ability to drive at an appropriate speed are already responsible for fewer collisions than the latter two. So speed should be measured in miles per hour, if we all did this then there would certainly be fewer casualties. We should all then apply what is appropriate within that limit. This should explain the correlation between ‘Appropriate Speed’ and ‘Numerical Speed’. This is one of the basic skills all drivers are taught when learning how to drive correctly.

===12. Our modern road safety system, with a high degree of emphasis on numerical speed, is sending some very dangerous messages indeed to road users everywhere. It says: If you are not exceeding the speed limit, your speed is safe; Your primary duty to road safety is to keep to the speed limits.=== This is one of the more ridiculous statements made within the report. I would very much like to see where the aforementioned statements have been published and which reputable and established bodies have made them.

The emphasis on numerical speed is, as stated before, the MAXIMUM safe speed. The driver’s responsibility to road safety is to determine what is appropriate within that limit. There is nothing misleading or even difficult to understand about this area of speed control. All road users will understand this most basic of driver skills even though some will not and do not apply it.

Section 2
We now come onto section 2 of the report. The section that deals with False and Misleading Data.

This section asserts that most, if not all of the academic research conducted to support the introduction and expansion of road safety cameras is false.

One only has to look at the statistics that since 1992 when road casualty deaths stood at 4379. In 1993 that number fell to 3957, a reduction of over 9%. Between 1992 and 2002 the death rates on the roads fell by a further 11% to 3508 an overall reduction in road casualty statistics of 20%. With the biggest winners being pedestrians. Was there any other, road safety initiatives, within this time that could have possibly contributed to such a reduction in casualties? It does not take a scientist to deduce that this is because Road Safety Cameras are having a significant, positive effect on road safety.

This section will take a look at the data and the arguments presented.

The ‘One Third Lie’
For almost a decade the government has been claiming that “One third of accidents are caused by speed’.

This claim is refuted by the author as ‘fudge’. It is known that within road safety circles the exact level is not known. Estimates have ranged from 7% - 30%. It would be fair to conclude that the actual figure lies somewhere in between.

Statistics and reasons for collisions are ever changing and so science cannot be applied to motoring. All that has happened here is that the figure has been given a ‘Best Guess’. However, as discussed previously, regardless of what percentage of casualties are contributed to speed alone, speed has an influencing factor in all collisions. This is by determining the severity of the collision, regardless of what the cause.

The ‘One MPH Lie’
Utterly absurd and blatantly false “scientific research” claims to observe that for every one mph reduction in average traffic speed we should expect to see a 5% reduction in accidents.

You only need to apply a little common sense to this one to realise the truth behind the research. Reducing overall speed will certainly cause the collision rate to reduce. Say for example that the average speed today is 60mph, what do you think would happen to casualty rates if this were reduced to 50mph, now reduce it to 40mph, now 30mph, now 20mph, now 10mph, and now 0 mph. So for average speeds to reduce even slightly would certainly produce reductions in road casualties. So the theory rests on solid ground and the scientists have estimated the likely effect of what a single one mph reduction in average speed could produce the prevention of 35 deaths. Now apply the same theory by raising the speed limit. No amount of science can refute this most basic of common sense, and to date, none has.

The ‘35% lie’
In the official report of the ‘two year pilot’ the claim is made that accidents have been reduced by 35% at speed camera site relative to long term trend.

You only have to look at the reduction in pedestrian casualty rates to conclude that this reduction can only have been caused by the introduction of road safety cameras. The claim is not misleading; it is just simple maths.

The author of the claim, Professor Heydecker has published the same findings the following year, this despite correspondence from the author of ‘Speed Camera’s – The Case Against’. Is it any wonder? You be the judge.

Accident Frequency Data
The claim here is that with 32 million drivers on the roads and 250,000 injury accidents per year the average driver goes 128 years between injury accidents.

This is very true in one way but lets look at this data in another way.


 * There are actually 30,500,000 registered licence holders in the UK but we will work with 32,000,000 for the purpose of this exercise.
 * There are 250,000 serious injury collisions every year in the UK.

If you divide one by the other you get 128, which is the number of years the report claims the average motorist goes between injury collisions.

This gives the likelihood of you being involved in an injury collision in any one year of 0.78%.

The problem though is that you run this risk every year.

Over an average driving career, of say 45 years, you actually stand a 35% chance of being involved in a collision causing injury. So at some point in your driving career you stand a better than 1 in three chance of hurting someone.

Over the same period your odds of actually killing another human being are 1 in 200.

These figures are based on the same calculations as the ones above, only they have been presented in a more realistic and understandable format.

But the fact remains that 250,000 of us will cause injury to someone this year, and next year, and the year after and so on until we do something positive about it.

Accident severity data.
This whole section I will not even attempt at this stage to comment upon. I don’t mind admitting that I do not understand any of it and I will not pretend that I do so. Much of the earlier claims are based on this evidence. If it is as inept as the earlier majority of the report then commenting on it is largely unimportant.

Speed Camera Effects
This section is an attempt to justify the claims made earlier in the report. It concentrates on drivers being largely responsible motorists effecting skill and judgement to determine appropriate speed.

This section also argues that safety cameras effect the motorists thought process which they believe could be dangerous. However if the motorist had been concentrating on controlling their vehicles in the first place then Safety Cameras should have no effect on their concentration.

I will however concede that these cameras may effect the concentration of some of our poorer motorists and this could present a negative effect. However this effect would be nowhere near the numbers needed to negate the positive contribution road safety cameras make to road safety.

In fact arguments of this nature will serve to argue that if this is the case then safety cameras should be made to be covert. If the motorist does not know they are there then there is nothing to distract them. In conclusion to this section, there is nothing to refute the positive effects of safety cameras. I would question whether the motorist who has to increase concentration on their speedometer, when passing cameras, to such an extent, that they render themselves a danger on the road, should keep possession of their driving licence. This is certainly an admission that some motorists find great difficulty in controlling speed.

Road Safety Results.
The report makes an attempt to show that Road Safety Cameras have actually contributed to the deaths of around 6000 people since their inception. In reality fatality rates have been steadily declining. There are many factors that contribute towards road casualty statistics, two of the most prominent in recent years besides safety cameras is the positive effect of compulsory seat belt wearing in 1983, and the negative effect of increasing mobile phone use throughout the 90’s and indeed the new millennium.

An effect called the ‘Fatality Gap’ has been referred to in the report, which follows two lines of trend. One line shows the projected path of the decline in road traffic fatalities without road safety cameras and the other with. The trend before safety cameras were introduced allegedly displays a sharper fall in casualty rates than after their introduction.

However, if we continued to follow the projected line, then surely, in theory, by 2020 there would be no more road traffic deaths on the roads. This is obviously a fantasy. At some point the number of road deaths must plateau out. This is what we are currently witnessing.

This chart illustrates Tom's point: casualties per billion vehicle km have been exhibiting a steady decline for some time; the rate of decline has decayed over time, as Tom suggests.

This could be down to many factors, such as the upsurge in mobile phones use. But the evidence clearly shows that Safety Cameras have done incredibly well for road safety that their installation must continue. At least until a better remedy is found.

The report continues in its desperate death throws to call for investigation into any more ways to that can be employed convince the easily persuaded that they are a hazard as opposed to an asset.

The report even calls for the complete cessation of safety camera activity pending a full scientific investigation. Thankfully this will never happen. The authorities will never risk the lives of hundreds of innocents to satisfy the whim of a disgruntled motorist. In fact, a better method to prove the effectiveness of road safety cameras is to promote a massive increase in their numbers. This would then give a clear indication as to their effectiveness without any cost in human suffering.

It is true that the government have realised that road safety is still an issue that needs to be addressed. But this is not because of Safety Cameras. The cameras are playing their part. More initiatives of a different nature are needed to address the vast amount of other problems our motorists pose to road safety. This is the answer the Government is looking for, continuance and development, and not cancellation.

All that has happened to road casualty statistics is that they have reached plateau. Common sense tells us that this was inevitable. Safety Cameras can only do so much.

Safety camera science has been founded on solid theory and since their inception road casualty statistics have fallen from 4379 in 1992 to 3508 in 2002. Although not popular with many motorists support for them is growing. Opposition to them ranges from self-opinionated ill-contrived reports to criminal activity, which could threaten the safety of anyone nearby.

To suggest that Road Safety Cameras cause huge loss of life, displays a complete lack speed and driver understanding to be credible. Because of this I feel that the report entitled ‘Speed Cameras – The Case Against’ will never achieve acknowledgement in any circles where it really matters.

In addition, this report is a dangerous piece of literature that is supported by prominent individuals who also fall with the remit of a normal motorist. These individuals include award winning motoring journalists whose actual altruistic driving ability I would bring into question. The report is persuasively formed, and will only gain support from those who want to believe in it. This however does not include the Government, campaigners, scientists, those whose lives have been saved because of them, and those whose love ones have been killed without them, real motorists, a proportion of the general public, and least importantly by myself.

The main area where ‘Safe Speeds’ report falls down is that they view the majority of motorists as ‘normal responsible drivers’ intimating a similar standard of driver ability.

As an ex instructor I know that all motorists have their own strengths and weaknesses when learning to drive. These areas are targeted by the instructor whilst the driver is under tuition. The rest of their competent driving skills are maintained to a good standard. So, the instructor teaches a pupil to drive a vehicle beyond test standard, not to pass a test as common myth suggests.

Once the driver has passed their test, the majority of drivers then relax and develop their own styles of driving. These styles largely consist of fewer observations, less mirror work, crossing hands on the steering wheel, rapid acceleration, harsh braking, speeding and so on. But the millions of our motorists develop thousands of combinations of these errors, which in the right circumstance will result in an incident. So, it is impossible to categorise driving standards, even generally. Besides the combinations of skill, you can also add attitudes, knowledge levels, confidence and awareness into the mix. What we have is a nation of drivers whose skills and abilities are so diverse that the only way to target road safety is by individual problems.

This is also unworkable because you cannot re-train 30 million motorists. So what we have is the road safety system that we have today, one that targets the known, major problems, and sets up ways to deal with them. Speeders have speed cameras, humps, chicanes and speed limits. Dangerous drivers have the police, poor drivers get re-training, drink or drug drivers get banned, and uninsured, unregistered and unlicensed drivers are also targeted by several agencies. So the wheels are in motion to improve road safety, and unfortunately speeders are a major part of that problem, unlike most other problems speeding is a dual problem, it causes around 7%+ of the total number of collisions and it determines the severity of all collisions.

Finally the author of this report has requested the immediate cessation of all Speed Camera activity until such time as a thorough scientific report has been made regarding their effects.

What this means is that the author of this report is only too willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of people in some pitiful attempt to prove a ridiculous point that speed cameras kill. The author also claims to be in favour of road safety.

In relation to the statement that Safety Cameras have claimed lives, then this is the response to that notion.

Conclusions
The author claims that safety cameras have claimed up to 6000 lives since their inception.

It has also been claimed that people have been killed because they are paying too much attention to their speedometer as opposed to the road ahead.

I put it to the author, that the only people affected in this way, at safety camera sites, are the speeders themselves. By his own theory, we can deduce that these drivers are giving priority to a driving licence over human life.

I also believe that some recognition is due to the author of ‘Safe Speed – The Case Against’ as he has highlighted three important points.


 * 1) Some speeders do not realist the priority between saving a life and saving their licence from penalty points. This would be an effective argument for increasing fines and bans for speeding motorists.
 * 2) With some speeders not paying attention to the road whilst passing safety cameras then surely the best option to take with safety cameras is to make them all covert. In this way the speeders will be detected and there is no excuse if involved in a collision.
 * 3) The most effective way to test the effectiveness of the ‘Road Safety Camera’ is to massively increase their numbers and assess the effect on road casualty statistics.

And finally, the report ‘Speed Cameras – The Case Against’ has been extremely selective in the statistical information that it refers to. It acknowledges an increase in the fatality rate between 2002 and 2003 however it fails to recognise the following points:


 * The overall numbers of deaths and seriously injured between 2002 and 2003 fell by 6%.
 * Child casualties fell by a commendable 8%.
 * There were 6% fewer pedestrian casualties in 2003 than in 2002.
 * 58 out of the 69 extra deaths were made up of two-wheeled vehicle users.
 * Pedal cyclists deaths fell by 12%.

&copy; Tom Heavey, January 2004, reproduced by permission.