Safe Speed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Safe Speed is a British web-based motorist advocacy organisation run by former computer engineer Paul Smith. Safe Speed primarily campaigns against automated enforcement of speed limits, arguing that sticking to a speed limit does not guarantee safe driving, and that all motoring laws should be enforced appropriately and proportionately. It is occasionally cited in mainstream media such as the BBC, as an opposing view on road safety issues. Safe Speed claim that they do not campaign against reasonable speed enforcement against drivers who are driving dangerously.
Contents |
[edit] Safe Speed
According to its website, the name "Safe Speed" comes from the "excellent and necessary safe driving practice of a driver choosing a speed that allows him to stop safely within the distance that he knows to be clear. This is known as 'the safe speed rule'". The group has links with libertarian groups[citation needed]. One prominent supporter (presented as giving academic support to Safe Speed's claims) is Dr. Alan Buckingham, a specialist in family life and relationships at Bath Spa University College and a contributor to The Centre for Independent Studies.
The Safe Speed website makes the claim that if any fact can be proven to be incorrect, it will be removed. One page was removed following criticism by Hans Jocksch, whose work was cited, but subsequently reinserted with similar content.
Safe Speed’s claims and aims are disputed, but the group has a vocal following, recently raising £15,000 from donations to ward off closure due to debts incurred in Smith's early months of illness. While many road safety campaigns are registered charities or limited companies, Safe Speed is not. Their funding appeal makes no distinction between personal and corporate debt.
[edit] Paul Smith
Safe Speed was founded by Paul Smith, a former professional engineer, now an "advanced motorist and road safety enthusiast" [1]. Since founding the organisation in 2001, Smith ran the project as a hobby from his home in Scotland for some time but in 2003, following a period of illness in which his self-employed computer engineering business ran down, he took it up full time at some significant personal cost. Although Smith has always used the word "we" when discussing Safe Speed on the website, it is not clear whether it has other members.
Smith is also a member of the motorists' lobby group Association of British Drivers (ABD).
[edit] Safe Speed's claims
Several motorists’ groups claim that there is no observable correlation between camera use and speeding fines, and improvements in road safety. Safe Speed go further, claiming that use of cameras actively reduces safety. Key claims include:
- "Speed kills, kills"
- That the prevailing safety message “speed kills” is misplaced, and that setting a safe speed for the conditions is more important.
- "One third of fatalities are now caused by speed cameras"
- By extrapolating the change in number of fatalities between two selected years to predict the fatality figure had that year-on-year trend continued, Safe Speed reach this figure based on the advent of speed cameras in the early 1990s.
- Distraction
- That drivers, fearing that a speeding conviction may be distracted from driving, overshadowing any benefits from speed enforcement. Safe Speed claim one second's distraction increases the speed of any impact by about 10 mph.
- Judging a safe speed
- That the use of speed limits and car safety features such as ABS reduce drivers' ability to judge appropriate speed.
- Regression toward the mean
- That government claims of reduced casualties at crash sites are inevitable and do not represent real improvement. That is, the number of accidents prior to placement of the camera was abnormal, so the subsequent drop is statistically expected.
- Travel speed vs. impact speed
- Safe Speed criticise claims that reduced vehicle speed increases pedestrian survival in the event of a crash. They argue that this is misleading, as impact speed is much lower. Safe Speed has lodged at least one (unsuccessful) formal complaint against public information films on this theme.
- "Cameras don't catch dangerous drivers"
- That speed cameras cannot assess dangerous driving or catch dangerous drivers. Safe Speed also notes that cameras do not stop drivers on site, as police do.
- Excessive speed unimportant
- That 15% of collisions are caused by excessive speed, citing Transport Research Laboratory report 323 published in the 1990s.
- Traffic policing more effective
- That traffic police numbers have decreased since the 1990s, due to the introduction of speed cameras. Safe Speed argue that police speed traps are more effective and can detain offenders on site.
- Camera accuracy
- That there have been "slip error" issues with the accuracy of speed cameras including LTI 20-20 type cameras (Lidar) and GATSO devices.
[edit] Corroboration
[edit] The weakening case for speed cameras
Most recently the case for cameras came under fresh scrutiny when it was revealed by the Department for Transport in their DfT Road Casualty Statistics 2005 report that figures from 2005 show that breaking the posted speed limit accounts for just 5% of crashes. The true figures for crashes involving speeding are:
- Fatal crashes 12%
- Serious crashes 7%
- Slight crashes 4%
- All crashes 5%
Fresh worries also emerged over the accuracy of the police STATS19 reporting method which is at odds with data reported by hospitals. There has always been a gap, but over recent years it has been getting wider. This is cause for concern and may actually mean the government is nowhere near meeting its 2010 Road Casualty Reduction Targets.
[edit] Opposition and Criticism
By and large, Safe Speed's claims have been ignored by the scientific community, and there have been few, if any, formal studies evaluating them. However, Safe Speed's interpretation of research has in some cases been directly rebutted by the authors of that research, including TRL and Hans Jocksch.
Critics such as George Monbiot have argued that Safe Speed is much more about speed than safety, and is part of a "culture of speed" which they also suggest is promoted by motoring magazines and TV programs such as Top Gear, presented by Jeremy Clarkson. It is argued that by stoking the controversy over cameras, Safe Speed and others contribute to increasing the excessive focus on speed, rather than reducing it.
Reduction of traffic speeds in residential areas (including by use of home zones and so-called "naked streets") remains a core road safety policy in the UK.
[edit] One Third of Fatalities
The "one third" claim is disputed by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) and the National Safety Camera Liaison (NSCL), which cite seatbelt and alcohol laws introduced prior to the 1990s, and recent increased road use and mobile phone use as better explanations for the perceived increase in casualties[1]. NSCL also points out that Safe Speed's figures are based entirely on accident totals, rather than distinguishing roads with or without speed cameras.
Which? magazine reports[1] that NSCL cite three studies which do allow for long-term trends, and which confirm the correlation between speed cameras and accident reduction.
[edit] Travel speed vs. impact speed
According to Smith, Hans Jocksch responded to Safe Speed's calculation of pedestrian fatality risk at low speeds, pointing out that his formula could not be used for speeds below 40mph and asking for all references to his name to be removed. The page still exists and is still based on Jocksch's formula.
[edit] Transport Research Laboratory
Which? magazine reports[1] that TRL strongly dispute Safe Speed’s interpretation of TRL 323. In particular they point out that the study was dependent on subjective judgments of primary cause, and that many of the other primary causes listed also implied excessive speed - however, excessive speed is not necessarily the same as 'exceeding the posted limit'. Other TRL studies (e.g. 421 and 511) have directly examined the relationship between speed and accidents, finding a strong association. Most importantly, a study of over 300 roads and encompassing several hundred thousand observations clearly showed that the faster the average speed of traffic on a given type of road, the more accidents there are; also, injury accidents rise rapidly as average speed increases, if all else remains constant.
Safe Speed dismiss these and other studies as "flawed" or "fraudulent".
[edit] See also
[edit] Further reading
- DfT's "four-year" report. See Appendix H for discussion of "Regression to the mean". [2]
[edit] References
- ^ a b c (October 2004) "Speed Cameras". Which?: 18.
- ^ The national safety camera programme: Four-year evaluation report (PDF). PA Consulting (2005). Retrieved on February 26, 2007.
