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.

  • Jonathan IMO the hatchback sedans like the Audi A5 Sportback, the Kia Stinger, and the already gone Buick Sportback are the answer to SUVs. The A5 and the AWD version of the Stinger being the better overall option IMO. I drive the A5, and love the depth and size of the trunk space as well as the low lift over. I've yet to find anything I need to carry that I can't, although I admit I don't carry things like drywall, building materials, etc. However, add in the fun to drive handling characteristics, there's almost no SUV that compares.
  • C-b65792653 I'm starting to wonder about Elon....again!!I see a parallel with Henry Ford who was the wealthiest industrialist at one time. Henry went off on a tangent with the peace ship for WWI, Ford TriMotor, invasive social engineering, etc. Once the economy went bad, the focus fell back to cars. Elon became one of the wealthiest industrialist in the 21st century. Then he went off with the space venture, boring holes in the ground venture, "X" (formerly Twitter), etc, etc, etc. Once Tesla hit a plateau and he realized his EVs were a commodity, he too is focused on his primary money making machine. Yet, I feel Elon is over reacting. Down sizing is the nature of the beast in the auto industry; you can't get around that. But hacking the Super Charger division is like cutting off your own leg. IIRC, GM and Ford were scheduled to sign on to the exclusive Tesla charging format. That would have doubled or tripled his charging opportunity. I wonder what those at the Renaissance Center and the Glass House are thinking now. As alluded to, there's blood in the water and other charging companies will fill the void. I believe other nations have standardized EV charging (EU & China). Elon had the chance to have his charging system as the default in North America. Now, he's dropped the ball. He's lost considerable influence on what the standardized format will eventually be. Tremendous opportunity lost. 🚗🚗🚗
  • Tassos I never used winter tires, and the last two decades I am driving almost only rear wheel drive cars, half of them in MI. I always bought all season tires for them, but the diff between touring and non touring flavors never came up. Does it make even the smallest bit of difference? (I will not read the lengthy article because I believe it does not).
  • Lou_BC ???
  • Lou_BC Mustang sedan? 4 doors? A quarterhorse?Ford nomenclature will become:F Series - Pickups Raptor - performance division Bronco - 4x4 SUV/CUVExplorer - police fleetsMustang- cars
Next