UK Statistics Authority Blasts Bogus Speed Camera Data

UK Statistics Authority Blasts Bogus Speed Camera Data
Government agency orders reforms to UK statistics improperly used to justify the use of speed cameras.

Statistics report coverAn independent statistics watchdog agency that reports directly to the UK parliament issued a report yesterday criticizing a key element of the government's road casualty figures. The UK Statistics Authority praised the general credibility of numbers generated by the Department for Transport (DfT), but the agency threatened to withhold the designation of "national statistics" from DfT reports if the department failed by November to reform the system of serious injury data collection known as STATS19.

"The major unmet user need is for statistical information about road casualties that reflect the well-documented fact that the STATS19 system under-records the numbers of those injured in road accidents and the severity of injuries," the Statistics Authority report explained.

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) documented the problem in a 2006 report (view study View this study in a 79k PDF file ). While government statements lauded the benefits of speed cameras based on a claimed road injury rate that had fallen from 85.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (before cameras) to 59.4 in 2004 (after cameras), hospital admission records showed that the road injury rate actually increased slightly from 90.0 in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004. The BMJ attributed the discrepancy to the police undercounting the number of injury accidents that take place. The House of Commons Transport Committee earlier this month insisted that something be done to force DfT to produce more reliable reports.

"We were disappointed that although the government's response acknowledged that there might be a problem, they did not propose any steps that we thought would deal with it," Transport Committee Chairman Louise Ellman said. "I am thinking particularly of the discrepancies between some of the reporting of serious accidents and data received by hospitals. We want the government to do more on that issue, as we are not satisfied that the information that we are getting is accurate."

The Statistics Authority laid mandatory changes that it believes will address the core problem. DfT must publish estimates of uncounted injury accidents so that readers of official publications will be informed of the scale of the undercounting problem. The department must also develop a plan to remedy the undercounting and more accurately label data and their sources. Because STATS19 data collection is currently overseen by a board comprised exclusively of government and police officials, the authority recommended that "broader membership of the Standing Committee on Road Accident Statistics might make user input more effective."

A copy of the Statistics Authority report is available in an 80k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Road Casualty Statistics (UK Statistics Authority, 7/27/2009)

Swindon branded 'Heroes' for speed camera ban

	The Conservative-run council voted unanimously to withdraw funding from fixed-point speed cameras last night claiming that the money would be spent on alternative speed-calming measures.

The Conservative-run council voted unanimously to withdraw funding from fixed-point speed cameras last night claiming that the money would be spent on alternative speed-calming measures. Safety campaigners, academics, politicians and the local police raised concerns over the move today.

Jane Whitham, a spokeswoman for Brake, the national road safety charity, said that the controversial choice could result in more deaths in the area.

“Brake wholeheartedly opposes this reckless decision,” she said. “In removing its speed cameras, Swindon Borough Council is entering into a very dangerous experiment with people’s lives.”

The council said that they wanted to scrap the unpopular cameras because they were forced to pay for their upkeep while the Government collected the revenue from speeding fines.

The Department for Transport receives £104 million per year from the fines and gives councils £110 million to pay for their own road safety measures. That money is allocated according to traffic accident statistics leaving some councils with bigger handouts than others.

Peter Greenhalgh, councillor for highways in Swindon, had led the campaign to remove speed cameras after branding them a “blatant tax on motorists”. After hiis populist rallying-cry he was hailed as a hero on Top Gear, the BBC motoring programme.

“We will be working very closely with our partners, including police in the road safety partnership to deliver a plan that reduced the number of people being killed on the roads in Swindon,” he said last night.

The councillor claimed that 70 people were killed in 2007/08 on the streets of Swindon, which proved that speed cameras were not making roads safer.

There are currently eight fixed-point cameras in Swindon — six speed cameras and two red light cameras. The speed cameras are expected to be taken down in six months' time when the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership deal ends.

David Ainsworth, Wiltshire’s deputy chief constable, said that police were urging the council to hold further consultation with them before they “physically remove any camera”.

“Police will not compromise on public safety. Together with other partners in the road safety partnership Wiltshire Police remain committed to the support of a variety of methods, including the use of cameras in speed enforcement.”

New road safety measures being considered by the council include education and training for motorists, better street lighting and reduced speed limits in problem areas.

Despite the end of speed traps in the town, police will continue to use mobile speed-measuring devices.

Neil Greig, research and policy director at the Institute of Advanced Motorists, claimed that Swindon’s decision could diminish the reputation of speed cameras.

“This move by one local authority smacks of tokenism, and may fuel public cynicism that the priority is saving cash rather than saving lives. To describe revenue from safety cameras as a ’tax’ is emotive, but not true,” he said.

“Properly placed fixed safety cameras are just one road safety tool, not a substitute for active road policing or long-term engineering improvements. They should be in addition to cops in cars, not scrapped.”

Some motorists have welcomed the abolition of speed cameras but Edmund King, the AA president, reacted with caution.

He said: “It is fine to remove cameras if they are replaced by cops in cars and interactive slow down signs. However, we do not want to see a road safety void in Swindon. Saving lives on the road is more important than party political wrangles over camera funding.”

Money Central: the 10 craziest parking tickets of all time