An investigation by the RAC has found that on average deaths and serious injuries were down by a quarter in sites where speed cameras were located.
An investigation by the RAC has found that on average deaths and serious injuries were down by a quarter in sites where speed cameras were located.
Analysis of data from 551 fixed speed cameras in nine areas found that on average the number of fatal and serious collisions in the vicinity fell by 27 per cent after the installation of cameras.
There was also an average reduction of 15 per cent in personal injury collisions in the vicinity of the 551 cameras.
The research also found, however, that in 21 camera sites the number of collisions appears to have risen – risen enough, according to the RAC, to warrant an investigation in case the installation of cameras has contributed to the increases.
In sum, then, in an analysis of 551 camera sites, the average number of serious collisions decreased by a quarter. In just 21 sites (four per cent of the total), collisions went up, whether because of the installation of speed cameras or not – we don’t yet know
How would any responsible, let alone honest, person interpret such data, then? Would they, as the director of the RAC has done, conclude that “without speed cameras there would be around 800 more people killed or seriously injured each year“?
Or would they instead single out the four per cent of camera sites where accidents did go up and make that the story – ignoring the 800 lives saved across the other 96 per cent of camera sites?
Here’s how today’s Daily Mail interpreted the RAC data.
What an absolute disgrace.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
15 Responses to “Speed cameras save 800 lives a year. The Daily Mail still doesn’t care”
Cole
Don’t worry. LB is a typical right winger who hates the NHS. He makes stuff up or twists facts to back his feeble arguments.
SadButMadLad
Speed cameras make hardly any difference to road accidents. Accidents have been going down before speed cameras were introduced. Looking at the chart I link to in Wiki, you could be lead into thinking that accidents dropped due to the introduction of cameras in 1991. But though that is true for the immediate period after the introduction which would be mainly due to the publicity, the general trend has not changed since the 1970s. We are now getting down to levels where reducing accidents further will require us to have a man with a red flag walking in front of cars.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Killed_on_British_Roads.png
So yes, speed cameras do have a purpose. But a very limited purpose in reducing accidents. They are more successful are generating money. And if they are generating money they are failing.
The fixation on speed ignores other an aspect of driving that are more important. That of driving to the conditions and environment of the road. So a 30mph speed limited road is too dangerous to do 30mph when it is icy or near a school or is residential. But 90mph on an empty dry motorway is very safe. But you get fined for the later but ignored in the former.
LB
If they aren’t in the health system, they aren’t killed in hospitals are they?
Hence the correct ratio is as calculated.
75,000 deaths per 225 million, compared to 40,000 deaths per 63 million.
If you haven’t noticed, we have just had one hospital that killed 1,200 patients, including starving them to death, leaving them in shit, …
We had one GP who murdered 215 (official figures). Actual is likely to be higher.
We have had hospitals deny treatment by putting patients on the Liverpool Care Pathway. Try reading up what that means. Now look at what was raised in the US with fears over socialised medicine. As yourself what’s the difference between a death panel and the LCP.
At least in the US, you can get to sue to get some redress. In the UK, its the victim that pays.
blarg1987
So when a private insurer refuses to pay out for an operation as they consier it “experimental procedure” and so the person is denied treatment that is not a death panel?
LB
Yes. However, there is one difference.
There are no restrictions in the NHS, and yet it does the same.
With a private insurer, such as say in the Swiss system, you are covered for everything in the contract, and that covers you for more than the NHS which regularly refuses treatment.