Road Safety News
 

Big fall in KSIs at Scotland's camera sites

Tuesday 31st July 2012

The average number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites across Scotland has decreased by 68% when comparing the most recent three-year average (2009-2011) with the baseline three-year average.

The publication ‘Key Scottish Safety Camera Programme Statistics, 2011’ contains figures relating to road casualties and offences at fixed, mobile and red-light camera sites. The average number of people killed or seriously injured amounts to a reduction from 337 to 108 per year.

While welcoming the reduction, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) in Scotland has also expressed concern that some drivers are still not heeding the safety messages at 40, 50 and 60mph locations.

For mobile speed camera sites, there has been a reduction in the percentage of vehicles exceeding the speed limit in all speed limit categories. However, for fixed speed cameras, while there has been a reduction in the percentage of vehicles exceeding the speed limit at 30mph sites (from 45% to 14%) and 70mph sites (from 33% to 26%), there has been an increase at 40mph sites (up from 18% to 22%), 50mph sites (up from 25% to 27%), and 60mph sites (up from 12% to 17%).

Kathleen Braidwood, road safety officer for RoSPA Scotland, said: “The use of cameras is part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent road accidents across Scotland, and we welcome the reductions in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites.

“However, it is really disappointing that there has been a percentage increase in vehicles exceeding the speed limit at 40, 50, and 60mph fixed camera sites, particularly because in Scotland we have so many rural roads that carry these speed limits.

“We know that three out of four road fatalities happen on rural roads. In Scotland, we really need to think about how we are driving on these roads, taking into account the constantly changing environment and what an appropriate speed is for rural roads.”

Click here to view the report, or for more information contact Jo Bullock/Charlotte Hester (RoSPA) on 0121 248 2134/2045.

Comments

Comment on this story
Report a reader comment

What's your view - comment on this story:

I confirm that I have read and accept the moderation policy and house rules relating to comments posted on this website.
Your comment:
Your name and location:
Your email:

I would be interested to know from the 5 people who disliked my point that the Scottish data proves nothing about anything, why they dislike it.

As an engineer for more than 50 years I have lived and worked with numbers, facts, evidence snd causal relationships all that time, and avoided at all costs wishful thinking and the comfort blanket of assuming that what I would like to be true actually is.

Though in my case, working almost all that time in my own small electronics company competing against others for the business of customers free to choose what and where they bought, I had little choice because in those circumstances gettng it wrong would have meant going broke.

So again,what aspect of what seem to me to be entirely reasonable propositions do you object?

In any case, as I may have written before, it would be a boring world and a boring site if everyone always agreed with everyone else.
Idris Francis

Agree (1) | Disagree (9)
-8

Why is it that camera operators always find big improvements as a result of their cameras, yet every independent report finds no benefit, or worse?

Why can't we, with all our knowledge of science and engineering, determine the effect of a safety device?
P Wilson : London

Agree (0) | Disagree (2)
-2

It's no better than all reports on cameras. When the RTCs rise it's always the drivers fault and when they drop it's the cameras that achieved it and I nearly had a serious RTC due to one of these unacceptable devices. The sooner they get back to basics "road policing" the better for all and then we can reduce our rates by disbanding such camera systems.
rememan Derbyshire

Agree (1) | Disagree (9)
-8

Despite my pleas in previous weeks, Mark draws another straight line between an unproved assumption and a foregone conclusion - there is nothing in this data to confirm any benefit whatever from Scotland's "comprehensive strategy". Of course for all I know there may be some benefit from it - my point is simply that there is nothing in these figures to confirm it, least of all which part of the overall strategy.

Once again, please do not link cause and effect without being able to provide rational justification for it, quantified at least to some extent.
Idris Francis

Agree (3) | Disagree (11)
-8

Oh dear, oh dear. Only 1 SI in 3.5 is reported (probably fewer slight), ratio fell 24% in recent years, so raw data unreliable.

Report does not say WHY numbers fell though being camera sites, vested interests will claim as camera benefit.

Normally reductions compare 3 years after / 3 before. These compare 2009-11 to periods back as far as 1997-99, 12 years earlier! From 1997-2011 Scotland's falls were K 51%, SI 54%, KSI 53%, SL 41%, All 44% (similar to GB) - all on roads 98% of which had NO CAMERAS AT ALL!

Balance easily explained as regression to mean after unusually high "before" figures, drivers diverting around cameras and taking their crashes elsewhere.

Move along there please - nothing of significance here, please do not pretend there is.
Idris Francis

Agree (4) | Disagree (12)
-8

Are road safety professionals concerned about what effect these speed cameras are having?

They may increase collisions, reduce them or make no difference. The problem is that this Scottish SCP report contains no analysis to evaluate whether the reduction in collisions would have been higher, lower or the same without the speed cameras.
Dave Finney - Slough

Agree (6) | Disagree (20)
-14

These are very impressive reductions, it seems that Scotland's 'comprehensive strategy' is paying off, well done to all involved.

I am sure that we will hear arguments that the strategy and the use of cameras have not had any part to play in these reductions but I would like to be amongst the first to celebrate less people being killed and injured at these sites.
Mark, London

Agree (19) | Disagree (5)
+14