this is just a windup? or you can link us to this?
Think this is it here:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Speed cameras not the answer
Alan Buckingham[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]My article 'Speed Traps' aroused considerable interest, including support from a number of those who drive on Australian roads. On the other hand, some researchers and politicians defended their pro-speed camera stance vigorously, including Professor Cameron from Monash University's Accident Research Centre (MUARC). In what follows, I will address some of his criticisms and reinforce some points I made in the original article, which I believe he has not considered seriously enough.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
Independence
Independent research on speed policy and speed cameras is vital given the potential impact that government decisions based on such research may have on road safety. It is therefore important to make clear that The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) did not commission my research, nor did CIS contribute financially to the research or my visit to Australia in October. For the latter, I have my employer Bath Spa University College to thank. Moreover, many of the ideas and arguments underpinning my article were elicited from independently-funded research and websites such as Paul Smith's site (
Welcome to Safe Speed), the National Motorists Association of Australia (
National Motorists Association Australia - Home), and others. The test of these ideas and arguments is not where they came from but whether they can withstand refutation from close analysis of the data. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In his response to my article, Professor Cameron assures the reader of the independence of Monash University's Accident Research Centre. Yet Victorian government employees, including representatives from the pro-speed camera bodies VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission, sit on MUARC's Board of Management. These organisations fund a significant proportion of the Centre's research.
[SIZE=-2]1[/SIZE] The closeness of the research evaluator to such funding bodies may compromise the independence of evaluation. Indeed, this lack of distance led the Queensland Parliament's Travelsafe Committee to comment that the independence of a recent MUARC review might have been compromised by the multiple roles of the architect of Queensland Transport's Random Road Watch programme, who engaged MUARC as consultants to review the programme, acted as primary contact for information requests, and co-authored the published evaluation report.
[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
Does speed kill?
Both Professor Cameron and I agree that excessive speed kills. Research indicates that those who drive well in excess of the speed limit are at a much higher risk of being involved in a fatal accident. But Professor Cameron does not recognise the minor role that excessive speed plays in accidents. Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) analysis indicates that 93% of accidents are not primarily caused by excessive speed. Moreover, excessive speeders tend not to be like ordinary motorists. For example, US research shows that a high proportion of drivers in fatal accidents involving excessive speed were driving illegally-that is, without a valid vehicle licence or under the influence of alcohol. Given that such individuals have already chosen to break the law, it is hard to see how speed cameras will deter them from speeding.
[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Regarding the more general relationship between speed, accident risk and injury severity, Professor Cameron refers to the Kloeden et al. reports to support his case. These reports are not as robust or universally accepted as he claims and the 1997 paper in particular has been criticised on methodological grounds.
[SIZE=-2]4[/SIZE] It is telling that although Professor Cameron wishes to demonstrate that speed kills, in his re-analysis of the Kloeden research he finds that there were so few fatal accidents recorded that the relationship between speed and fatal accidents could not be reliably estimated. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Unable to show that speed kills, Professor Cameron relies on grouping together accidents of varying injury severity-from hospital admissions to fatalities-to make his weaker case that speeding results in more severe injuries. Even this is unconvincing since Professor Cameron finds that travelling at up to 15 km/h above the speed limit is associated with no increase in the risk of serious or fatal injury.
[SIZE=-2]5[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The problem is that in some Australian States speed cameras operate at tolerance levels as little as
5 km/h above the posted speed limit. Since nine-tenths of Australian motorists admit to speeding at least some of the time,
[SIZE=-2]6[/SIZE] the majority of motorists risk being caught for safe driving.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The 1997 Kloeden report claims that for every 5 km/h increase in speed above the speed limit the risk of an accident doubles. Using this sort of logic, those who campaigned against the repeal of the US federal 55 mph speed limit claimed that an extra 6,400 deaths would be caused by increased speeds. Yet in most States the 55 mph limit has been raised, average speeds have increased and since the law's repeal in 1995 the US fatality rate has dropped by over 10%.
[SIZE=-2]7[/SIZE]
The ineffectiveness of speed cameras
While I agree that the analysis of fatality trends is not an entirely satisfactory way of assessing the casual impact of speed cameras on road fatalities, it seems reasonable to expect that if cameras were as successful as their proponents claim, we should see a visible impact on the fatality trend. Professor Cameron claims there is such evidence and refers to UK research on the impact of speed cameras. However, this research only examined the broad category of 'killed and seriously injured' (KSI) and it does not tell us whether cameras saved lives. In fact, a falling KSI figure may mask a rising fatality trend. One of the UK counties studied-Essex-recorded a 1% drop in KSIs between 2000-2001 while showing a 33% increase in fatalities over the same period.
[SIZE=-2]8[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]My analysis of Victoria's road fatality trend is also criticised and data is referred to showing impressive drops in fatalities between specific years. However, if this trend is examined over the entire period that cameras have been operational and compared with the national trend, the data look less convincing. Between 1990 and 2001 road fatalities per head of population decreased by 27% in Victoria compared with an overall drop of 35% for Australia.
[SIZE=-2]9[/SIZE]
Professor Cameron argues that the analysis of such trends is 'superficial and misleading', but he does not take account of the weakness of the site-specific analysis of speed cameras on which his own case for the effectiveness of cameras depends. As a 1994 TRL report makes clear, research on the speed/accident relationship, even in a before and after experiment, 'needs to take account of potential changes in factors such as accident reporting, enforcement levels, weather conditions, on street parking, traffic flow variations and changes in vehicle mix'.
[SIZE=-2]10[/SIZE] When speed cameras are installed they are frequently accompanied by such changes. Often the claimed dramatic reductions in fatal accidents at camera sites fail to take account of these confounding factors, undermining the validity of the findings. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
Unintended consequences
Perhaps the most serious weakness of Professor Cameron's reply is his failure to address the unintended consequences of speed cameras. That government-funded bodies such as MUARC have not investigated these consequences is no reason to dismiss them, for there are sound logical reasons why speed cameras may cost lives and they deserve further research.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]For instance, if motorists believe the message that slower speeds are safer, then risk compensation theory tells us that, perceiving themselves as safer, motorists are likely to take more risks such as tailgating or late braking. Such an effect has been shown with the introduction of seatbelt laws in the UK where 'the law had no effect on total fatalities but was associated with a redistribution of danger from car occupants to pedestrians and cyclists'.
[SIZE=-2]11[/SIZE] In short, believing they were safer when belted, motorists drove in a more dangerous way, which led to the deaths of more pedestrians and cyclists.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
Policing and motorists' attitudes
There is clear evidence that speed cameras are changing the way roads are policed as well as the attitude of some police officers towards their job.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority predicts that fixed speed cameras will free up police officers to 'perform other functions'.
[SIZE=-2]12[/SIZE] In the UK this has already happened. The British Royal Automobile Club estimates that the proportion of road traffic police officers is a third of its 1990 level.
[SIZE=-2]13[/SIZE] I argued in my article that without officers policing the roads their ability to catch incompetent, irresponsible and illegal drivers diminishes. Backing this up, data on British road fatalities show that, together with a sharp drop in the number of breath tests over the last four years, the number of drink-related fatalities has reached a ten-year high.
[SIZE=-2]14[/SIZE] There is therefore a prima facie case that speed cameras are indirectly implicated in an increase in road fatalities.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Police concern about speed cameras and their role in enforcement is also becoming evident. For example, a recent letter to the Herald Sun signed by 'Concerned Sergeants' working in Melbourne expressed frustration about the way in which they believe cameras are being used on roads with artificially low speed limits, low tolerance levels and high revenue-raising potential.
[SIZE=-2]15[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Finally, Professor Cameron has failed to address the growing public opposition to speed cameras and the consequences for policing. A recent report by the car insurer AAMI shows that 58% of motorists say that speeding fines are a source of revenue rather than a way to reduce the speed of motorists while 48% felt that it was unfair to penalise motorists travelling only a few km/h over the posted speed limit.
[SIZE=-2]16[/SIZE] In Britain it has moved a worrying step further with a well-publicised report showing that fewer than 25% of motorists would report to the police a speed camera that they saw being defaced.
[SIZE=-2]17[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
