Speed cameras: Are we interested in evidence?

You still haven’t answered my county line question.

Like all laws you get better compliance if people understand the reason.

It's not an "allegation", it's evidence.
And the evidence suggests that speed cameras are causing an increase in death and serious injuries.
Have you seen the video, or read the report?

Going back to earlier posts regarding budgets etc and targeting motorists, people saying just don’t speed etc it’s annoying that so many resources and money gets pumped into trying to catch speeding, rather than “real crime”. Don’t see as much effort put into burglaries, anti social behaviour etc. I’d rather have a motorist driving through the estate just over the limit than a gang of shi#t bags hanging around wrecking peoples properties and being a nuisance.
I do think it’s more about money than anything else. I’m sure if there was a survey of what the public wanted the police to concentrate and spend more money and resource on it wouldn’t be speeding. Councils when they need more money look to the motorists by increase parking charges, introducing cameras for traffic infringements etc.

The m5 interchange with M4 (including passing cribs causeway) , the change in limits from gantry to gantry is daft. You really do have to concentrate, more than you should, on the changing limits.

Julian is exaggerating the point but telling him to catch the bus is poor form. He's right, it's become a major feature of some motorway sections, not getting caught out by drops in limits from one gantry to the next.

Wow, 6 pages of discussion and finally the 1st question about the actual evidence, THANK YOU.
The video at 5 minutes could only skim the surface, the detail is on my website.

You've almost got it.
The video examines 2 major factors that influence collision rates:
1) site selection.
2) the speed cameras.

It's the timing that's important.
Site selection influences collision rates:
1) BEFORE the cameras
2) ONLY during the SSP.

Knowing that, we can then remove the effect of site selection so that what is left is the effect of the speed cameras.

So the "previous increases" are not just "down to natural spikes in mean numbers",
they are down to "selection" of sites when collisions were "unusually high".
And this obviously only occurred during the SSP.

Either side of the SSP, collisions occurred at around their "mean" (or normal) rate.
After speed cameras, there was an increase in the "mean" (or normal) rate of fatal and serious collisions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss

I had the same thought. It's interesting research for sure, particularly the bit about how the selection process may bias towards sites with a transiently high accident rate, and how that will undermine the ability to assess how effective cameras are. And it's clear enough in the case in the video at least that there hasn't been a positive effect from the cameras. But I don't think there's enough there to confidently conclude that cameras actually make things worse.

I do think it's undeniable though that average / variable speed limit zones etc. on motorways tend to create a scenario where most drivers are doing about the speed limit, which leads to bunching, makes overtaking harder, and undermines lane discipline. Some of this seems to make the environment more dangerous, but on the other hand speeds are more predictable and you tend to see less impatient risk taking.

Ad-hoc mobile cameras which only serve to make everyone slow down for 30 seconds before resuming whatever they were doing before do seem particularly pointless though.

I'd say not necessarily the bus, but extra driving tuition would absolutely sort all his problems out, in this regard.

And I'm saying that hasn't changed for me as time has passed, that includes where ever I drive (including autobahn).
It's no more difficult now than it was yester-year & my driving hasn't got worse because of it either because the driving hasn't changed.
I didn't drive at 10/10ths on road back then & I don't now, so I aim to always have spare capacity.

A number of years ago on a clear late summer evening with very light traffic I was caught by the last of that line of cameras. Starting from the bridge over tha Avon the signs are all at 60 except the last one before the NSL sign & that one is 50.

I recall the local Bristol paper carrying an article that the camera set to 50 had caught more motorists than the previous 4(?) set at 60.

The 60 & 50 limits are still applied when there is virtually no traffic. Variable limit?

,
..and I pass through that section without incident, all the time . I'm fairly local, I've not had a ticket for speeding in around 15 years,at least. But passing through a section of numerous speed limit changes with cameras without incident doesn't make it the same as if there were no cameras there... Do you see what I mean? It is distracting and fairly unpleasant, particularly at night in the rain where you want to be 100% focussed on the road ahead ,and not if the limit has suddenly changed down by 10mph.

There are plenty of people I know personally who describe the stretch of motorways as a spiders web of traps. It's a waste of resources and makes the local Avon and som constabulary look "opportunist" / abusing their position. Defend them all you like,but most intelligent people see the spread of cameras as an abuse of power, lazy crime stat gathering,and quite frankly, enjoyed by some police. It really,REALLY does not help when A&S police post tweets and local gazette articles boasting how many people they caught at site "X". Its a law to be enforced where appropriate,not a game to catch the public. But then I know a couple of police,and they treat the public/civvies as a seperate species,one much less so than the other TBF.

I would add that some logic might tell you,"sod it! I'll drive the whole section at 40, just incase",which is nuts TBF, but... More and more I'm passing people on the motorway doing 40ish (which is downright dangerous), and even more so people are starting to adopt 20 as the "norm" when they don't need to in 30s ( I'm assuming either "just in case" ,or, more likely,they think they are being good citizens. "if 20 is right outside schools/ all of Wales, then 20 is what is right everywhere in urban zones").