The health community must defend effective injury prevention interventions
This commentary examines the current campaign against speed cameras in the United Kingdom. It reveals how a health intervention, even when shown to be effective at reducing deaths and injuries, can be subject to sustained attacks from highly organised antihealth forces. It calls for concerted action among health professionals to respond to the increasingly vocal motorist lobby groups. Health professionals have a duty to defend effective interventions from unwarranted attacks. They should communicate with the general public about the role of such interventions in improving health and takes steps to ensure that vocal lobby groups do not threaten evidence based injury prevention initiatives.
Road traffic collisions are an important cause of death and disability both worldwide and in the United Kingdom.1 By 2020 road traffic collisions will have moved from ninth to third place in the world ranking of the burden of disease.2 And each year in Britain around 3500 people are killed and 330 000 are injured on the roads.3 Research in the United Kingdom estimates that at least one third of collisions are speed related.4
Measures to reduce traffic speed are considered key to reducing casualties on the road.5,6 In the United Kingdom speed cameras are used to help reduce traffic speeds, traffic collisions, and casualties.7 A major expansion of speed cameras is underway, led at police force level by multiagency groups called Safety Camera Partnerships.7 The camera partnerships include representatives from the police, local authorities, and National Health Service (NHS). The partnerships are centrally financed, and can also use income generated from fines to increase the number of cameras in their local area. The government hopes that the safety camera initiative will help it achieve its road safety targets.
Speed …
[1]
OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH IN EUROPE IN THE 1990 s
,
1999
.
[2]
Kamran Abbasi,et al.
War on the roads
,
2002,
BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[3]
United Kingdom. Welsh Office,et al.
Road accidents Great Britain 1995 : the casualty report
,
1996
.
[4]
Mg Bourne,et al.
Victoria's Speed Camera Program
,
1993
.
[5]
Rune Elvik,et al.
Effects on Accidents of Automatic Speed Enforcement in Norway
,
1997
.
[6]
Bg Heydecker,et al.
A cost recovery system for speed and red-light cameras: two-year pilot evaluation. Research Paper, 11 February 2003, Department for Transport
,
2003
.
[7]
G Chen,et al.
Evaluation of photo radar program in British Columbia.
,
2000,
Accident; analysis and prevention.
[8]
W J Frith,et al.
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF COMPULSORY BREATH TESTING AND SPEED CAMERAS IN NEW ZEALAND
,
1996
.