Misleading data and our claim of 2% above the speed limit.

Click through to Evidence or keep reading to reach the evidence.

The speed kills policy is being justified by using government and government funded university studies which invariably recommend the use of speed cameras. We cannot find a single report that provides data on the number of road crashes that occur because of vehicles traveling above the speed limit.

This lack of data that is used to justify the speed kills policy could be accepted if the policy was saving lives. It isn't - it's adding to the road toll.

Accompanying the policy are fines, loss of licence, loss of income and changes to the law that all have a social impact on responsible Australians.

Below are details on the government reports as well as the evidence for our claim that not even 2% of fatalities are caused by travel above the speed limit.

Speeds at which crashes occur.

It may be blatantly obvious but it is necessary to clarify that road crashes occur at one of two speeds:

above the speed limit
-------------------------------------
below the speed limit.

Detecting speed.

It is also critically important to understand that speed cameras can only detect unsafe speeding:

above the speed limit
-------------------------------------
NOT below the speed limit

It is technically impossible for speed cameras to detect vehicles traveling at unsafe speeds below the speed limit. This is important.

RARU report.

Below is a chart from the University of Adelaide's "Traveling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement" upon which most of the current argument for lower speed limits and the use of speed cameras is based.

Download a copy here. It is often referred to as the RARU report.

You will see that over three quarters, 76.1%, of the crashes (table 4.4) used to compile the data for the purpose of justifying speed cameras was caused by a road user turning in front of or across the oncoming (subject) vehicle.

68.2% are vehicles while a further 7.9% are classified as "hit pedestrian or bicyclist" where the pedestrian or bicyclist walked or rode in front of the subject vehicle.

76% of crashes unimportant?

All crashes occurred in the Adelaide metropolitan district in 60 km/h speed limit zones. The majority of the crashes were obviously at or near intersections and not caused by the “subject” driver or rider.

Although this report identified the cause of over 76% of crashes there are no recommendations for preventing or even reducing these crashes.

Is this report about safety or was as a pre-determined outcome to justify the lowering of speed limits and increased revenue generating enforcement the objective?

Should the State Governments not be focusing on intersection crash reduction? Should the Federal Government not be eliminating or making intersections safer with the $10 billion in fuel taxes?

Queensland Road Safety Strategy 2004 - 2011

This is a document aimed at finding ways to reduce the road toll. Submissions were due by 6 June 2003. You may still be able to download a copy here.

Amazingly, this document illustrates Queensland's worsening safety record following the introduction of speed cameras. It however fails to mention this fact.

The chart is recreated below showing each introduction of new traffic control measures. It illustrates how speed cameras failed to push fatalities even lower as they should have. Instead they halted the decline the same as the national chart shortly after speed cameras were introduced.

Any perceived benefits of speed camera use need to be measured against this government chart. Queensland implemented the use of speed cameras after most other states.

United Nations recommendations.

In April 2004 the United Nation's WHO (World Health Organisation) released a report called Road Traffic Injury Prevention.

It identifies "Five key areas for effective interventions".

It starts, "Speed: slow down!" then lists their "Facts".

• Speed contributes to at least 30% of road traffic crashes and deaths.
• For every 1km/hr increase in speed there is a 3% increase in the incidence of injury crashes and a 5% increase in the risk of a fatal crash.
• Pedestrians are eight times more likely to be killed by cars traveling at 50km/h than 30km/h."

It then goes on to list, " Key interventions". These are:

• setting and enforcing speed limits
• designing roads according to their function (e.g. highways, suburban roads)
• speed cameras or stationary enforcement
• traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps and traffic circles
• education and public information."

Based on developing countries.

Notice the similarities to the NSW and the RARU reports.

The UN state, "Speed" contributes to at least 30% of road traffic crashes and deaths but do not clarify whether their definition of "Speed" includes traveling too fast for the conditions but below the speed limit.

RoadSense suggests it does and will be happy to publish the UN definition here.

They then recommend the use of speed cameras which can only deter above the speed limit travel.

The UN report includes data from highly populated and developing China and India where road fatalities are high due to bad roads, unsafe vehicles and inexperienced drivers.

Speed cameras are no deterrent where many vehicles are unregistered as in developing countries.

Even though Australia is developed and sparsely populated, our governments fall in line with the UN recommendations.

The UN also praised the Australian state of Victoria for their most stringent speed camera campaign - even with their faulty cameras.

"Speeding's" misleading definition.

Here is more complete information on the NSW report mentioned on page one.

The NSW "Speed Problem Definition and Countermeasure Summary" is a prime example of the reports used to justify the speed kills campaign.

On page one, the document states: “Legislation in NSW makes it an offence to travel at a speed greater than that specified by the speed limit. Speeding, however, can also involve traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions, despite traveling UNDER the posted speed limit.”

The NSW definition of "Speeding" therefore means traveling both "above" as well as "below" the speed limit. Is this misleading?

"Speeding" below the speed limit.

When charged with "speeding" the charge is for traveling above the speed limit - not below it.

The NSW definition of "speeding" allows the inclusion of the massive amount of crash data from below the speed limit with the 2% of crash data from above the speed limit.

We are willing to publish the actual NSW or any other credible above the speed limit crash data on this site. (Not "speeding" - above the speed limit.)

The NSW study solely recommends the use of speed cameras. There are no measures to save lives below the speed limit although that is where the majority of data is obtained.

Claims of 40%? We say 2%.

Based on it's definition of "speeding", the NSW report claims that, “speeding still accounts for around 40% of all fatal crashes in NSW".

We claim not even 2% above the speed limit. One of us must be wrong.

Speeding and Non Speeding.

The multi page NSW report is devoid of "Above" and "Below" the speed limit data, they use "Speeding" and "Non speeding" to segment their data. Obviously they don't want the above the speed limit data known by the public.

The Radar Reporter website (scroll down to "The Political Scams on their site") took NSW to task but they could not prove that any more than 4% of fatalities occurred above the speed limit.

This 4% however still included police chases, criminal activity, suicides and more - not the behavior of the vast majority of responsible drivers and riders.

Every k over is a killer?

Queensland's campaign claims "every k over is a killer". We may ask, every k over what? Victoria says "wipe off 5" - and the same applies to the next slower speed until the only safe speed is stop.

In order to support their policy, Queensland published stopping distances on their website. In 1998 they published a chart which was in line with most claims on braking distances.

By 2000, in spite of improved brakes, tyres and suspension, Queensland's website published a second chart that claimed it took longer to stop than in the past.

The graphic below is a re-creation of their 1998 and 2000 charts with a third from Transport for London for comparison.

Professional driver?

Both the 1998 and 2000 stopping distances were still up on different parts of the Queensland website during late 2003.

The 1998 chart was at:
web.archive.org/web/19990824080703/
www.roadsafety.net/Speed/Menu/6.html
The 2000 chart was at:
www.roadsafety.net/SPEED/speeding.html

The second set of bars are the "revised" 2000 stopping distances for a car equipped with the best possible tyres and brakes and driven by a professional driver”.

Wheels magazine can stop just about any car from 90km/h in well under 50 metes. (Wheels Yearbook 2002, P10.)

Prior to the speed camera era it was only 1.8%.

Fact is hard to come by anywhere but the British Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) investigated a new accident report form.

The results, published in TRL 323 in 1997 revealed that “excess speed” was a factor (a factor, not the cause) in 7.3% of accidents.

That is 7.3% of accidents - not fatal crashes. Even if around one quarter of this 7.3% involve fatalities it comprises 1.8%.

Check out the TRL 323 data here.

The Evidence - Not Even 2%

Crucial Australian Parliamentary study claims 1.8%.

The evidence is in the 1994 "Queensland Government Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee study no 15", headed, “Speed cameras: should they be used in Queensland?”.

It is important to note that this document was created prior to the speed camera era which means it is not distorted by data from the subsequent use of speed cameras. The study was created by seven eminent Queensland politicians whose names would be familiar to most Australians, as well as a highly regarded research director.

The chairman of the study in his summary stated, "Members of Travelsafe Committee would expect me to give due credit and thanks to the Research Director of Travelsafe, Mr (name edited out by RS), for his valuable input into this and many previous reports to Parliament. He will be completing his secondment to the Committee after this report is presented to Parliament. He will be sorely missed for his absolute professionalism, his organisational ability, his dedication to the task at hand, his research methods, his incisive mind when applied to the information available and his pleasant personality".

This is a professional document and on page (ii) of the Chairman's summary he claims that only 1.8% (one point eight) of road crashes are caused "solely" by speed.

These are the actual words from the study."Fatal accidents, caused solely by speed, represent 1.8% of all accidents reported State-wide, but only 0.8% of all accidents in Brisbane."

The study still didn't state "above the speed limit", they stated, "solely" by speed so it could still be argued that their 1.8% also includes below the limit "speeding", police chases, criminal activity and more.

We have a copy of Travelsafe study no 15 on file.

Where were our motoring associations?

This Queensland study was produced by politicians and consultants at a time before implementation of the state's speed camera campaign.

Even with this meager 1.8% statistic they still went ahead with speed cameras. Does this mean their minds where made up with or without the study.

We have to question whether our motoring associations were looking out for their members interests when speed camera legislation was passed? They have to approve speed camera sites and we suggest they are aware of the lack of above the limit data in the reports used to justify speed cameras. Have they questioned the lack of data or misleading studies?

Our motoring associations need to be called to task as a matter of urgency. They need to be demanding the necessary data.

We will publish any motoring association's response as to why they support the speed camera policy in light of the lack of data - that is not saving lives.

Join our call to action.

The facts presented here fly in the face of the media campaigns and claims of benefits of the "speed kills" policy.

We call on our politicians to take urgent action to start saving the 98% of road crash victims who die below the speed limit each year.

We call on our motoring associations to question the data used for the justification of speed cameras.

We also call on our newspapers, radio and TV stations to expose the problem. We ask that you make the the public aware of the facts. We ask that you call on the government to present their credible data on road crashes caused by travel above the speed limit. Not "speeding", "caused by speed", "involved excessive speed" or any other terminology used to add data from below the speed limit to data from above the speed limit.

If they say they don't have this data then how do they know how many lives speed cameras can save. How were they able to justify speed cameras without above the speed limit data?

Weight of public opinion will help to achieve genuine road safety.