Lies Of Omission And Comission: The Truth About Speed And Safety Statistics
When complaints grow too loud, reporters ask public safety agencies for reassurance that traffic law enforcement really is all for the best.
Accused of running a speed trap, the sheriff explained his speed enforcement cut fatal accidents from three or four per year to zero. Police said right-angle collisions were down by half at intersections with red light cameras. The Department for Transport proudly reported that road injuries were down 30% since the introduction of speed cameras.
This is all compelling evidence.
This is all lies.
The government has unique access to safety data. We have to go digging for it if we’re allowed to see it at all. Out of the countless lies told by government to justify regulations or enforcement, these three are among the very few that were independently fact checked.
Aren Cambre pulled the accident reports for Westlake, Texas and discovered that fatal accidents went up when the Sheriff started his speed trap. There were not 3-4 per year before, there were two in total in the previous six years. There were not zero after, there was an average of one per year. The death rate more than doubled.
An auditor asked Manitoba’s government monopoly insurance provider for claim records for Winnipeg. Accidents near cameras were way up. Serious accidents more than doubled and injuries were up 64%.
A researcher bypassed police statistics and checked hospital records to see how many people had been injured in car accidents. Serious injuries had not decreased, as the government claimed. They had increased. Police cut reported injuries by one third by simply not reporting them.
Both Winnipeg and the British government learned from their mistakes. Next time Winnipeg got accident statistics from the provincial insurer the city refused to release them to the public. We can guess what they say. The Department for Transport tried to suppress a study that showed speed cameras increased accidents in work zones.
Around 1990 the U.S. government sponsored a study on the effect of changing speed limits. When the study confirmed the well known result that numbers on signs do not do much of anything, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration refused to publish the report. Fortunately, NMA lobbyist Gail Morrison got her hands on a copy and passed it around Congress. The national speed limit was repealed soon after.
We call it cherry-picking. You pick and polish the evidence that supports you and try to bury the rest where nobody will find it.
When you see a statistic, ask yourself: is it the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Do I believe what they are telling me? Can I figure out what are they not telling me?
I’ll come back to this later. In the meantime, a puzzle:
I don’t care about reducing red light running or red light running crashes. Why not?
A clue: read about “proxy variables” in statistics.
[Courtesy: The National Motorists Association]
More by National Motorists Association
Comments
Join the conversation
In Philadelphia, people run lights all the time. It is dangerous - very dangerous. Even in multilane red light controlled intersections, people apparantly are not paring attention. Or are intentionally actring dumb. I beleive that because people are so outraged by these flagrent law breakers, they welcome red light cameras. It seemas a way too catch the bad guys. In reality, on one of these multi lane traffic controlled intersections, one of the poster children about what is right about about cameras, there are problems. If you are stuck in the intersection cause the knucklehead in front of you suddenly stops, you get a ticket. If the light changes yellow as you approach the intersection, chances are that it will turn red before you get out of it. You get a ticket. So you can decide to SLAM on your brakes when u are partially into the interesction, and have the tailgaiter in back of you plow into u, or risk said ticket. And I suppose, worst of all, one is forced to pay way too much attention to the traffic signals and camera locations, and not enough attention to the other travellers and road conditions. It is not safe. I thought it was a good idea at the time too. I no longerr do. We have to come up with something different to discourage traffic menaces. I dont know what that is. As to the National Motorists Assoc., their hyperbole is appraoching biblical. Yes there are problems. No, it is not some giant gumment inspired racket (of well it is, but thats another story). I would have them turn down the rhetoric, they might be taken more seriously. Now, they are just another screeching bobblehead, in a forest of screeching bobbleheads.
It kills me when I see those propaganda commercials on how "speed" kills. No, speed does not kill. The lack of driver consideration, the lack driver skill and the lack of driver attention kills. Speed can contribute to the severity of an accident, but speed does not kill. Traffic light cameras in some cases are good, because some drivers just dont give a damn. The problem with traffic light cameras, are the drivers who are already too cautious. Traffic light cameras makes their condition worst. Cameras will cause them to slam on their brakes—sometimes as soon as the light changes to yellow—stopping when they could have simply rolled through the intersection. If the driver behind knows that the person can easily make it through, they are not expected an abrupt stop. CRASH! Then you have an accident, one in which the driver behind might be charged when the situation was perpetrated by the driver in front.