UK Government Fudges Traffic Accident Count To Support Speed Cameras

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

For the past several years, the UK Department for Transport (DfT) has heralded the drop in the number of serious traffic accidents as evidence of the success of its speed camera policies. For the first time, the agency admitted last Thursday that injury numbers have dropped because its statistical method is incomplete. Although DfT reported 230,905 injury accidents took place in 2008, the agency now believes the true number of accidents is actually three times greater. “Our best current estimate, derived from survey data with cross-checking against other data sources, is that the total number of road casualties in Great Britain each year, including those not reported to police, is within the range 680 thousand to 920 thousand with a central estimate of 800 thousand,” Matthew Tranter with DfT’s Road Safety Research and Statistics wrote.

In July, the UK Statistics Authority ordered DfT to reform its procedures in light of evidence that the department’s data showed far fewer injuries than reported from hospital admission records. The government has placed an emphasis on showing reductions in accidents and injuries as evidence that its road safety strategies have been successful.

“These statistics are used to inform public debate and support policy on road safety,” the DfT annual report on road accidents explained.

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) was first to show that, contrary to DfT’s former assertion, injury accidents were not decreasing ( view 2006 BMJ study). DfT claimed road injury rate fell from 85.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (before cameras) to 59.4 in 2004 (after cameras), but hospital admission records showed that the road injury rate actually increased slightly from 90.0 in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004. The DfT’s report last week included a chart showing the discrepancy between hospital records (HES) and the DfT’s STATS19 data began in 1997 ( view full chart, page 64).

“There is, however, some evidence that the proportion of casualties admitted to hospital and known to police that were misclassified by the police as slightly injured increased marginally between 1999 and 2004,” the DfT report stated (page 67).

The governmental focus on using automated enforcement also relies on an exclusive focus on “speeding” as the primary cause of road accidents. The DfT data show that, in fact, exceeding the posted speed limit — the only factor that can be measured by a speed camera — rarely causes accidents.

“Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents, while traveling too fast for conditions was attributed to 5 per cent,” the report stated (page 46). “For fatal accidents these figures are both 8 per cent.”

The report admits that traffic calming devices designed to force motorists to reduce their speed in some cases caused accidents. Speed bumps and chicanes killed six motorists and caused 176 accidents, according to DfT figures (page 44).

A full copy of the DfT report is available in a 5mb PDF file at the source link below.

Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2008 (UK Department for Transport, 9/24/2009)

[courtesy thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 3 comments
  • SCE to AUX SCE to AUX on Sep 29, 2009

    This is pretty rich. If they keep eroding the tax base by killing off the taxpayers, they'll have to raise the cost of the tickets.

  • Tricky Dicky Tricky Dicky on Oct 01, 2009

    I believe Mark Twain was only wrong in one respect. His quote misses the most diabolical way of misrepresenting "facts". - Graphs "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics AND Graphs" Anyway - speed never kills. I think the real killer is excessive force from deceleration, which can happen from any starting speed. That's why cyclists often die when they fall off their bikes and hit their heads. It's not because they were going 71mph before the accident.

  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
  • TheEndlessEnigma Poor planning here, dropping a Vinfast dealer in Pensacola FL is just not going to work. I love Pensacola and that part of the Gulf Coast, but that area is by no means an EV adoption demographic.
  • Keith Most of the stanced VAGS with roof racks are nuisance drivers in my area. Very likely this one's been driven hard. And that silly roof rack is extra $'s, likely at full retail lol. Reminds me of the guys back in the late 20th century would put in their ads that the installed aftermarket stereo would be a negotiated extra. Were they going to go find and reinstall that old Delco if you didn't want the Kraco/Jenson set up they hacked in?
Next