Thu, 15 Dec 2005

n the report of the 4th year of the speed camera hypothecation scheme, published today by the Department for Transport (DfT) we finally get an estimate for THE major error in speed camera claims.

The error is a statistical effect called 'regression to the mean' (RTM or RTTM). Appendix H contains: "Thus RTM accounts for about three fifths of the observed reduction in FSCs (Fatal and serious collisions) with the effects of
the cameras and trend each accounting for a fifth."

This is a clear and unequivocal admission that the benefits of speed cameras have been wildly exaggerated. Last year's claim of 40% reduction in killed and seriously injured at speed camera sites becomes 8%.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign( said: "With the truth about speed camera ineffectiveness finally emerging it is staggering that the DfT has not found the courage to pull the plug."

"Speed cameras are 21st century snake oil. They have made our roads far more dangerous by focussing everyone on the wrong safety factor. They must be scrapped immediately before more people die of 'bad policy'.

About Safe Speed

The Great Speed Camera Con Trick

Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 49, an advanced motorist and road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience, has carried out about 5,000 hours of research into the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety.

We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything carried out by any other organisation. Paul's surprising conclusion is that overall speed cameras make our roads more dangerous. Paul has identified and reported a number of major flaws and false assumptions in the claims made for speed cameras, and the whole "speed kills" system of road safety.

The inescapable conclusion is that we should urgently return to the excellent road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the World in the first place.

Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits or appropriate enforcement of motoring laws, but argues vigorously that automated speed enforcement is neither safe nor appropriate.