Below is an email that was posted into the MRA Forum on Yahoogroups. I
don't think that the author subscribes to aus.moto. If she does, then my
apologies for reposting this.

--------[start of original message]----------

From: "Lee"

Below my notes from interview on 774 ABC Radio, Tues 28 Oct, 8.38pm


British Academic Alan Buckingham, Author UK report, "Speed Traps"


AB "We all want to see reduction in number of deaths. But I certainly
don't agree with the claim that speeding is a major cause of accidents.
The data isn't there to show it. The British Transport Research
Laboratory says ~7% of crashes are caused by excessive speed.


774: "Your views aren't fully agreed upon when it comes to academics
looking at road safety. Rebuked by NSW and NZ authorities."


AB: "Speed cameras are used in a technical way to get people going a few
km over the speed limit and not really catching dangerous drivers. I
don't believe speed cameras are doing their work."


Ian Johnson, MUARC Coordinator: Claims that Alan Buckingham's report is
wrong on every count. "There is data from at least four different
studies that shows conclusively that speed is incredibly important. It
astonishes me when someone says that the data isn't there and writes an
article that ignores all the scientific literature"


AB: "It's interesting to note that Ian talks about speed rather than
speeding. That allows him and his colleagues to say that crashes are
caused by speed. I refer to the Transport Research Lab that excessive
speed is a very minor cause of crashes."


IJ: "The best research evidence is a case control study carried out by
Uni of Adelaide. It showed that if person is doing 80 kph in 60 kph
zone, the risk of a crash is 30 times what it is if travelling at 60. At
65, the risk is double what it is at 60. The government has therefore
chosen to operate at a 5kph margin over the limit. It's similar to drink
driving - the risk doubles at 0.05. This is particularly the case in
areas where there are pedestrians and cyclists."


AB: The research Ian refers to is not as strong as people believe. It
relies on reconstructing crashes and working back. Other US research
where strips are laid in the road and crash speed is measured indicates
a U curve relationship b/w speed and crashes [didn't get what this
means]. Those who speed excessively are dangerous and should be caught.
The problem is that speed cameras catch people going a few km over the
speed limit and don't make a distinction between excessive speeding."


Rob (rider who phoned in): "The government is drawing a really long bow
in saying speed cameras have reduced the road toll. Road toll reduction
shows a 30% reduction in riders and 35% reduction in pedestrians. I've
never seen a speeding pedestrian. The rider community has put a lot of
work into teaching people about roadcraft and road skills. Speed cameras
taking all the credit should be drawn out as what it is."


AB: "I find it unbelievable that claims are being made that cameras are
reducing the toll by 70% yet we're not seeing a reduction in the overall
road toll. The enormous reductions achieved by Britain and Australia
came from catching people driving inappropriately. We need to go back to
education. We need to start spending money on roads to upgrade them as
poor road quality is a major cause of crashes. 40% of crashes can be
due to quality of the road."


IJ: "This debate has got out of hand. Some people on one side are saying
the whole thing's all about speed. We've never said that. We've pressed
the government very hard for road investment. Large numbers of people
are killed when they run off the road and hit trees etc. We've
encouraged the government to seal shoulders, install ripple strips (not
his words), install wire rope barriers (!!!) etc. to stop this. The
motorcyclist is absolutely correct - a large part of the fall in the
road toll is pedestrians, which is exactly what you'd expect from a
reduction in speed limits in urban areas. ...I'm the strongest critic
[advocate] of the government in taking revenue from speed cameras and
investing it back into road safety. I think that should certainly
happen. I'm certain the speed reduction program did not start as a
revenue raising program. I'm sure it started because the evidence [is so
strong that there's a link between speeding and accidents]. I'm
astonished that Alan is ignoring this."


AB: I'm astonished that Ian isn't aware of powerful opposing evidence.
UK research suggests that raising and lowering speed limits has little
impact on people's driving speeds as they choose to drive at speeds they
view acceptable. Why Britain and Australia has a lower death toll has a
lot to do with not speed but driver culture - attention, politeness. All
of these are being lost in the desperate push to become speed obeyers.



--

Take out the "trash" for an email reply...

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:58:49 GMT
Martin Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> where strips are laid in the road and crash speed is measured indicates
> a U curve relationship b/w speed and crashes [didn't get what this
> means]. Those who speed excessively are dangerous and should be caught.

It's the old 85th percentile thing I think.

Crash likelihood high if you are well below the average speed, drops as
you approach it, stays dropped until you get somewhat above it, then
climbs when you get well above it.

Zebee

That would be the "U curve" mentioned in the interview. If you were
to plot speed along the bottom of the chart and likelihood of a crash
up the side and plotted as you describe Zebee, you would get a chart
that looks like a "U"

Regards


Steve


Zebee Johnstone <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>.. .
> In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:58:49 GMT
> Martin Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > where strips are laid in the road and crash speed is measured indicates
> > a U curve relationship b/w speed and crashes [didn't get what this
> > means]. Those who speed excessively are dangerous and should be caught.
>
> It's the old 85th percentile thing I think.
>
> Crash likelihood high if you are well below the average speed, drops as
> you approach it, stays dropped until you get somewhat above it, then
> climbs when you get well above it.
>
> Zebee

In aus.motorcycles on 28 Oct 2003 14:19:27 -0800
Steve Strik <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> That would be the "U curve" mentioned in the interview. If you were
> to plot speed along the bottom of the chart and likelihood of a crash
> up the side and plotted as you describe Zebee, you would get a chart
> that looks like a "U"

Yes, that's what I said.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>.. .
> In aus.motorcycles on 28 Oct 2003 14:19:27 -0800
> Steve Strik <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > That would be the "U curve" mentioned in the interview. If you were
> > to plot speed along the bottom of the chart and likelihood of a crash
> > up the side and plotted as you describe Zebee, you would get a chart
> > that looks like a "U"
>
> Yes, that's what I said.
>
> Zebee

And i was agreeing with you

Steve

Zebee Johnstone said....

ZJ> In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:58:49 GMT
ZJ> Martin Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> where strips are laid in the road and crash speed is measured indicates

I didn't write that...



--

Take out the "trash" for an email reply...