in response to 'scrapcam' petition
Downing Street has trotted out some dodgy and discredited statistics in response to the 28,000 signatories of the famous 'scrap speed cameras' petition which closed on Tuesday.
The response from the Prime Minister's office in full with Safe Speed comments inserted and marked with a '*'.
====================================================
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about safety cameras on the Number 10 web site.
Speeding kills. It is a contributory factor in 26% of all fatal accidents in Great Britain.
* No it isn't. According to Department for Transport figures exceeding a speed limit it is a contributory factor in 12% of fatal crashes. We know that many of those are caused by reckless and 'abnormal' driver behaviour.
The facts are stark. If a child pedestrian is hit at 30mph they stand an 80% chance of surviving. But if they are hit at 40mph they stand an 80% chance of dying. That is why the Government is committed to achieving appropriate vehicle speeds on the roads as part of its integrated road safety strategy.
* The true facts are more encouraging. In 2005 in built up areas (20, 30 and 40 mph speed limits) 11,000 child pedestrians were injured out of which 47 were killed. 0.42% were killed. So clearly we're not running into them at 'speed limit' speeds because at 30mph we would have killed 2,200. The claim is grossly misleading. [2]
We are succeeding in changing attitudes, and in making drivers realise that one of their responsibilities is to comply with speed limits. The proportion of car drivers who comply with the 30mph limit has greatly increased over the last few years.
* Hardly greatly - and the means of gathering the information changed in the year when the biggest fall was recorded - but that's NO HELP AT ALL when road deaths aren't falling significantly. We don't need more compliance - it's a false objective. We need safer roads. And we aren't getting them.
Safety cameras provide a valuable and cost-effective method of preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and traffic light offences. Their use is based on solid evidence. All reliable research from around the world clearly demonstrates that cameras reduce speeds and save lives.
* Solid evidence? I'm afraid not. The 'evidence' is dominated by statistical errors and a total failure to consider the side effects of the policy.
Independent research (new window), published in December 2005, shows that safety cameras had saved around 1,745 people from being killed or seriously injured, and had prevented around 4,230 personal injury collisions on Britain's roads each year.
* That very same report reveals - buried in appendix h - that 'regression to mean effect' accounts for a full three quarters of the benefit claimed. To make the claim while ignoring the know error is nothing less than a FRAUD.
And while they are saving lives, safety cameras will remain a key part of our road safety strategy.
* They aren't saving lives. That's why they must go. That's why 28,000 signed.=================================================
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "I am ABSOLUTELY LIVID that 10 Downing Street has sent out inaccurate and grossly misleading to the 28,000 signatories of the 'Scrap Speed Cameras petition'. How dare they! Lives are at stake. This is a matter of public safety and misleading statistics cause resources to be miss-allocated and that means that the opportunity to save lives is missed."
"Dodgy statistics won't save lives. The Prime Minister's office needs to do far far better than this."
"I demand the right to communicate with the 28,000 signatories by email. Every one agreed to receive up to two emails when they signed."
"I challenge 10 Downing Street to put up ANY of their experts for public debate on the issue. We'll soon so just how dodgy their claims and statistics are."
