Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Hear hear - and why is the DTLR condoning speeding?
- Harry Rutter (10 May 2002)
-
Speed cameras are not the answer
- Paul R Dishman (11 May 2002)
-
Increasing audibility of speed cameras
- John M. Williams (11 May 2002)
-
More on speed cameras
- Bogush J Mann (12 May 2002)
-
Wrong specialty?
- John Simpson (13 May 2002)
-
Barking up the wrong tree
- Kenneth A Charman (13 May 2002)
-
Speed = Revenue Gathering Cameras
- Alan R Werninck (13 May 2002)
-
Speed cameras are not the answer, but they are certainly one answer!
- Kate Carpenter (14 May 2002)
-
Improve speed limit signage
- Brian Morgan (14 May 2002)
-
Government "anti pedestrian"
- Mark A. Johnston (14 May 2002)
-
Motoring AND health
- Paul Pilkington (16 May 2002)
-
Law and law enforcement
- (Dr) Trevor LP Watts (17 May 2002)
-
Untitled
- Bogush J Mann (20 May 2002)
-
Experts Opinion...?
- Kenneth A Charman Charman (20 May 2002)
-
Reduction in overspeeding is a useful public health measure
- Kalyanaraman Kumaran (21 May 2002)
-
Speed limit enforcement essential to improve population health
- Stephen M L Christie (12 June 2002)
|
|
|||
|
Harry Rutter, SpR Public Health South East Public Health Observatory, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford OX3 7LF
Send response to journal:
|
Very well put - I couldn't agree more. I wonder what proportion of the people reading the BMJ habitually speed, putting other people's lives in danger and creating a hostile environment for walking and cycling. I find the response from the DTLR absolutely extraordinary http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1976000/1976907.stm: 'a spokesman for the Department of Transport rejected the claim. He said cameras were placed in areas where motorists were most at risk of having an accident. 'He said: "Cameras are situated in areas where there is a history of accidents. When people see cameras ahead they do slow down. Slowing down at dangerous stretches of a road is very good." 'He added: "Making the cameras more visible gives drivers enough distance to slow down and takes away the need for sudden breaking [sic]. Gradual breaking is much better than sudden breaking."' First - 'areas where there is a history of accidents' correlate extremely poorly with the level of danger posed by a road - pedestrian death rates are similar on motorways and pedestrian precincts, but both pose very different threats. Pedestrians are not stupid, and withdraw themselves from danger whenever possible - most areas of great danger have little or no injury record. Crashes are also, thankfully, relatively rare events, so they are subject to significant random variation. Second, the final paragraph quoted above demonstrates that speeding is seen as acceptable by the DTLR - what other explanation can there be for the need to warn motorists that they need to slow down from their illegal speed, and help them avoid getting caught? Speed cameras should form part of a network of measures to reduce speed on our roads in order to create a safer, less polluted, and more pleasant environment in which people can walk and cycle in safety and comfort. Increasing their visibility sends a clear message that speeding is acceptable, and demonstrates the low priority given by policy makers to tackling the commonest form of street crime. Harry Rutter |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul R Dishman, Pharmacist St Thomas Pharmacy, Exeter , EX4 1HW
Send response to journal:
|
Speed cameras are claimed to be responsible for reductions in accident rates, yet the evidence quoted by the road "safety" lobby is deeply flawed. The most frequently quoted statistic is the 18% reduction in accidents in London between 1997 and 1998 , however this was reversed in 1999 when despite the use of cameras the accident rate increased by 14%. Taking the three years before and after the introduction of cameras in 1997 show an increase in accident rate of 4.2%. In truth it is not possible to show a causal link between speed cameras and accident rate and the evidence quoted by Dr Pilkington is unimpressive. The road safety lobby seems to be fixated on speed as the major cause of road accidents when the evidence shown in the Transport Road Laboratory report TRL 323 gives excess speed as a factor in only 7.3% of accidents. By concentrating just on speed and not addressing the low standard of driving in this country by improved driver training, retesting drivers after age 70, and having a higher standard driving test the government's simplistic approach will do nothing towards making Britain's roads safer for all of us. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John M. Williams, Owner, Markanix Co. P. O. Box 2697, Redwood City, CA 94064
Send response to journal:
|
Here in the U. S. A., we have quite a lot of controversy about speed cameras, because they have been used to accuse drivers of crimes in the absence of a witness of the fact. To avoid the issue of improper accusations, I would suggest that the cameras be perhaps visible, but that the alarm system activating the camera be equipped with a horn or buzzer capable of emitting a distinct, loud noise each time an apparent red-light violation occurred. This noise would provide several benefits: It would warn potential victims nearby; it would immediately remind careless but corrigible drivers to be more law-abiding; and, it would alert possible witnesses of the violation, thus allowing them to report the offense to law enforcement. The cameras really should not be necessary at all. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bogush J Mann, IT NG51HN England
Send response to journal:
|
> Interventions to control speed seek to reduce both the likelihood and the severity of a collision. The setting of appropriate speed limits is a major strand of this preventive action, and speed cameras are one of the main methods of enforcing these. But do not the speed cameras enforce arbitrary and artificially lowered limits on safe roads, rather than appropriate limits on actual accident black spots? Does one camera not trap thousands of motorists a day? Does its location suffer thousands of accidents a day? > The effect of speed cameras on road traffic collisions is well documented. Did not accidents and fatalities fall for decades despite traffic increasing? And have not accidents and fatalities begun to rise, despite traffic in urban areas now starting to fall? And is not the changeover marked by the introduction of speed cameras? > A study in London showed that deaths fell threefold, Would that be from three to one in succeding years? > and a trial in eight police force areas saw a reduction in deaths and injury after the introduction of cameras. Did not one of those forces boast about reductions, despite figures published the same day showing the opposite? And have not deaths and fatalities gone up despite the trial areas experiencing freak high figures in the year preceeding the trial? > These measures seem designed to placate the angry minority of motorists.............. Who seem to be blamed for any sensible traffic safety measure. Who are these angry motorists who have the ear of the government? Are they the same people who successfully campaign for more speed cameras. For traffic "calming" perhaps? For 24 hour bus lanes (where are the 24 hour buses?) even? |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Simpson, Project manager CO11 2HT
Send response to journal:
|
I am not clear why a 'specialist in public health' has chosen to pontificate on matters of motoring. I am not a not a trained medical man and would never dream of pontificating on medical subjects or trying to influence other people's lives. 'Angry minority of motorists?' A silent majority, I think you will find: turkeys do not vote for Christmas. People interviewed will always tend to say that speed cameras are wonderful - to dare to do otherwise would tempt immediate accusations of child murderer, paedophile and other insane connections that various extremists have cooked up. Witness the headline in Essex: 'Road deaths up 46% despite success of speed cameras'. Eh????? Conclusion: Maybe there are *other factors* invloved in accidents that the politically motivated will not see. Wow, radical thought eh? That's got to be worth a £60 fine... Mr Pilkington has merely expressed a personal opinion, and an unqualified one at that - if he does not drive even more so. The BMJ must not let its good name and reputation be hi-jacked into giving personal opinions extra 'official' credibility. Further, Mr Rutter is clearly only interested in cycling - an activity which accounts for perhaps 0.5% of road users. He is clearly trying to arrange the world for his personal convenience, regardless of the misery and expense that might inflict on the other 99.5%. Note also that the 99.5% pay massive taxes and insurance premiums to travel the Queen's Highway, whilst he pays nothing. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kenneth A Charman, Director N echo UK
Send response to journal:
|
The UK has the safest roads in Europe – yet cars and in particular the speed of cars is the target of a massive propaganda campaign. The huge investment in publicity, research, and speed detection devices will result in a marginal improvement at best. The more likely outcome will be a public backlash as occurred in Ontario where government was forced to totally remove its traffic cameras (with no consequent deterioration in traffic accidents). Surely, there are many areas where our health and safety lags behind the developed world, where this investment would be better concentrated. Or perhaps, public health and safety is not the prime motive behind these campaigns. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan R Werninck, Retired University Lecturer
Send response to journal:
|
This country should follow the lead of the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario in banning these cameras. The reasons are quite clear. They are being used underhandedly to generate revenue as a journey along the A68 from Edinburgh to Carter bar clearly shows with placements in trees and on good open overtaking stretches of road. If anything, the presence of these cameras and their deployment increases road accidents as I believe is the case in certain Southern English counties. A far more appropriate answer to reducing road accidents is to train people to drive better in terms of observation and anticipation. They will then drive at a speed that is appropriate to the road, weather and traffic conditions that prevail at the time. Such a speed is of course a variable and the realisation of this is the reason why prescriptive speed limits are so disobeyed by very many drivers. Speed limits simply are not set rationally so rigid enforcement of them is quite unjust. Apart from this, authoities in the Canadian provinces mentioned above also recognised the essential unfairness of a system in which prosecutions and their penalties are automated with absolutely no judgement as to the seriousness of the misdemeanor. One might as well replace a magistrate or judge with a computer and simply feed in numbers, an absolute negation of any proper legal system. The self-incrimination demands that are part of the "speed" camera debacle now constitutes a test case in Europe, let us hope that this at least is successful. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kate Carpenter, Highway Safety Manager, Babtie Group Bedford, MK40 2ZY, UK
Send response to journal:
|
The evidence is overwhelming; there is an entirely proven link between speed of collision and severity of injury, and therefore reducing speed, even by 5mph, can dramatically reduce injuries. The trials where highway and police partnerships reclaimed their camera-running costs from fine income show spectacular casualty reduction at camera sites, and general reductions throughout the authorities. Certainly we need to improve driver training, but how long will that take? Cameras are just one piece of the puzzle, but one which can quickly show casualty savings. They're not the only solution, any more than I imagine one drug will cure all ailments. Is that a reason to abandon an effective treatment? It is likely that the 'yellowing' of cameras will reduce their effectiveness, enabling drivers to slow down at just one point, endangering pedestrians elsewhere as they please. It is Mr Dishman's approach which drove DTLR to require us to make cameras more visible, despite mounting evidence that doing so would reduce safety overall. Finally one important point: there is NO legal requirement to sign cameras or make them yellow: that is a contractual matter between police authorities and the government, relating to reclaiming of expenses. The offence is the same, whether you were caught on a grey, yellow or pink camera (It sounds as if you were caught!) Perhaps we need research into the occupations most willing to risk the lives of others? As an engineer, I'd say my colleagues are much like everyone else: we like to drive fast sometimes; we all speed sometimes unintentionally, and we know we must be constrained sometimes for our own and for others' good.) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brian Morgan, Freelance journalist Cardiff CF11 6LF
Send response to journal:
|
Two members of my household, including myself, have over the last three years or so, acquired fines and points for speeding. As a result we are now both paranoid about speed limits and as vigilant as we should have been before the incidents. I would like to see better signing of speed limits on all speed restricted roads - in some areas the speed limit is marked on the road surface and this is about as visible as one could expect. Of course we know what is in the Highway Code, and what to expect if a road in a built up area has lamposts without speed limit signs of 40 or 50 on them - and sometimes in not so built up areas as well. But dare I suggest that many more people will observe the speed limit if reminded of it periodically right in front of their eyes and for those who will not, covert speed cameras are still the answer? Is this something the road safety analysts might endorse? |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark A. Johnston, Resource Management Consultant Somerset BS23 1DF
Send response to journal:
|
The Government is now so afraid of being labelled 'ant-motorist', it has become 'anti pedestrian". "Making the cameras more visible gives drivers enough distance to slow down and takes away the need for sudden breaking [sic]." Will someone at the DTLR tell us what the round signs with numbers in them are supposed to do if not encourage drivers to slow down without the need for sudden braking?! I agree totally with Pilkington's comments. The statements from the DTLR make one worry that they have 'spun' their way into Lewis Carole's Queen of Hearts territory and lost all sense of logical thought. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul Pilkington, specialist in public health King Square House, Bristol, BS32 8DA
Send response to journal:
|
I am amazed (but probably shouldn't be surprised) by Mr Simpson's opening statement, that a "specialist in public health" should not be talking about a motoring issue. I fear that many people who quickly seek to criticise efforts to improve road safety (including the introduction of cameras) fail to understand (or maybe do not want to understand) the links between health and road traffic. I would ask these people: if motoring and health are not related, then why have the BMJ (one of the most influential health journals in the world) bothered to produce a special edition on road traffic? I would encourage all those who may fail to recognise the links between road traffic and health to read the full issue of the BMJ RTA special. Maybe then they will understand the issues better. As for being unqualified to voice an opinion on the matter, I have for the past five months been working on a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of speed cameras at reducing deaths and injuries. The study is due to be completed in the next month or so. Although there are methodological issues to take into account, premilinary results show positive results for speed cameras. Hopefully the results of the review will provide definitive scientifc evidence of their effectiveness. I am amused that while anti-camera protestors are quick to critise the evidence used by health advocates, they are even quicker to use evidence of a similar quality to further their own arguments. I suspect that many figures quoted against cameras, are lifted straight from the Association of British Drivers website. Hardly an unbiased source. I wonder whether the ABDs claim to be "the voice of the motorist" is evidence-based? In my letter to the BMJ I argue against a change in policy that is not based on any evidence of effectiveness. How can people argue with that? Maybe some are afraid of what the results of a rigorous analysis of the effects will be. Certainly, the evidence of the effect of highly visible cameras and the banning of dummy warning signs is easy to summarise: it is NILL. Compare this to the wealth of data I have seen, collected by forces, which shows that the current system works. I am a car driver (not that it should make any difference) and do not see why SOME drivers (and it is a minority) seem to feel that they are being unfairly punished when they choose to break the speed limit. The mentioned case in the European Courts is a prime example of the complete ignorance a MINORITY of drivers have about why speed limits exist. They are there to improve road safety and health. I agree with Kate Carpenter. Speed cameras are only one means of improving safety. But, as she said, they are an effective means of doing so. I commend the BMJ for firstly bringing the issue of road traffic and health into the public arena. And secondly for giving health advocates the opportunity to use their professional knowledge to counter unsubstantiated arguments that frequently are aired in the popular media. Paul Pilkington |
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Dr) Trevor LP Watts, Senior Lecturer/Consultant in Periodontology GKT Dental Institute, Guy's Campus, London SE1 9RT.
Send response to journal:
|
The bottom line on speed cameras, radar traps and any other devices to improve road safety is very simple. If you believe in law rather than anarchy, you will keep to the speed limits even if you think they are inappropriate. Therefore it doesn't matter what methods are used to catch out law-breakers, so long as they are accurate methods. So if someone seriously objects to speed cameras, I conclude that either they are up to no good or they can't understand the difference between law and its enforcement. And long live the involvement of public health specialists in road safety. We need them to bring science and sanity to the matter! |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bogush J Mann, IT NG5 1HN England
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Trevor LP Watts says: "The bottom line on speed cameras, radar traps and any other devices to improve road safety is very simple ........ it doesn't matter what methods are used to catch out law-breakers, so long as they are accurate methods. So if someone seriously objects to speed cameras, I conclude that either they are up to no good or they can't understand the difference between law and its enforcement." This would be accurate as in the rumours emanating from Germany that spurious readings due to fans, rain, spray, reflections, etc are producing false prosecutions. Or accurate as in the type of camera that produces a false reading if a flat backed vehicle is travelling UNDER 17mph? Or methods such as the reports, one published in the press under the officer's name, that half of speed limits at speed trap sites are illegally signed? Or perhaps methods such as locating cameras on fast straight downhill runs, often at the only safe overtaking opportunity, in conjunction with a specially lowered limit? Is it any wonder that accidents are really going up after falling for decades? "And long live the involvement of public health specialists in road safety. We need them to bring science and sanity to the matter!" I can't wait! |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kenneth A Charman Charman, Director Necho UK RG40 1BH
Send response to journal:
|
The speed camera debate drags on and in the words of Paul Pilkington, (Motoring and Health) we should commend … “the BMJ for giving health advocates the opportunity to use their professional knowledge to counter unsubstantiated arguments that frequently are aired in the popular media”. Mr Pilkington appears to claim that “professional knowledge” gives him the right to rise above general opinion in this debate. We should bear in mind that the UK already has the safest roads in Europe. The dramatic measures that would be required to improve in road safety would have consequential effects in society and the economy far beyond the scope of My Pilkington’s limited research. Mr Pilkington should know, it is improper to claim that evidence based research can be performed on the health effects of non health sector interventions. The complexity of human behaviour makes it impossible to set up meaningful controls or to adequately monitor side effects. For these reasons Roads, Cars, Speed Cameras and Law Enforcement absolutely belong in the “popular media”. Any commentator who has taken the trouble to read up on this subject has equal debating rights to Mr Pilkington. The BMJ should be cautious about the credibility it gives to health sector professionals who claim health sector standards of proof for research in social behaviour. This is social science and it should come with its own health warning. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kalyanaraman Kumaran, Specialist Registrar - Public Health South West Peninsula Health Authority, Dartington, TQ9 6JE
Send response to journal:
|
I have read the article by Mr Pilkington and the comments it has generated with great interest. First of all, I would like to commend Mr Pilkington for his article. I think any issue which potentially affects the health of the public is within the realm of a public health specialist and therefore cannot really understand the objections that a public health specialist should not be writing about traffic. Road traffic accidents account for significant mortality and morbidity – particularly among the very young and the elderly who are most vulnerable to fast moving traffic. There is good evidence that the speed of the vehicle at the time of impact plays a crucial role in determining the extent of morbidity. Therefore any measure which reduces overspeeding should be considered useful. The fact that the UK has the lowest death rate from accidents should not prevent us from adopting methods that may bring down the death rate even further. The feeling that the speed limits that have been set may not be appropriate is entirely another issue. Until those limits are changed we, as drivers, are bound to follow them. I do agree that speed cameras form only one aspect of the movement to increase road safety; nevertheless we cannot afford to do away with cameras until every one of us follows the law. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Stephen M L Christie, Research Officer Gwent Health Authority NP4 0YP
Send response to journal:
|
I welcome Dr Pilkington's warning that increasing the local visibility of speed cameras might result in more deaths and injuries away from camera sites. Globally, road traffic collisions (RTCs) are the leading cause of death and disability among people aged under 35 years. The epidemic is worsening at the global scale and by the year 2020, RTCs are expected to be the third leading cause of disability-adjusted years of life lost for all ages. In highly motorised countries, including the UK, the cost of RTCs has been estimated at 2 percent of gross national product. The burden of death and disability from RTCs is inequitably distributed across the UK population. For example, among children, for whom RTCs are the leading cause of death, the RTC death rate was eight times higher in the lowest social class than in the highest in 1989-92; that eight-fold difference represents a steeper social class gradient than for any other disease or injury. Static speed cameras were very effective at preventing injuries and deaths wherever they were used in the UK in the 1990s. However, the effect was restricted to relatively near the sites. One way to 'regionalise' the road safety benefit of speed cameras, that is to deter speeding driving and prevent collisions throughout a region, is to use cameras at covert locations, supported with publicity. This approach was found to be effective in saving lives and preventing injuries in New Zealand. Unfortunately, as Dr Pilkington points out, the government in the UK appears to have opted for the opposite approach, which is to make camera use locally overt. That approach facilitates speed limit compliance only at camera sites. At the population level, the benefit of preventing RTCs at camera sites is minimal compared to the potential benefit of regionalising the effect, since current guidelines only permit cameras to be used a small number of sites. The guidelines for site selection are considerably more stringent in the UK than in other developed countries. Less than 1 percent of RTCs occur at sites that meet the current guidelines for speed camera use. Making cameras more conspicuous willl hopefully prevent many of those 1 percent of RTCs but may have no effect, or perhaps even a worsening effect, on the remaining 99 percent of RTCs that occur away from speed cameras. Most of those 99 percent of RTC injuries and deaths are on 30 mph roads within towns and cities, and that is where we need to implement strategies that cause drivers to keep within speed limits. The government's current approach will not have such an effect. |
|||