15.2% increase in fatal + SI crashes at Welsh speed cameras

[Corpulent Tosser]

Dave Finney said:

cmaguire said:

What I would want to know is how the mobile increase actually rates against the actual presence of a van rather than the possible presence.

That is a very important question. When similar increases in fatal and serious collisions occurred at mobile speed camera sites in Thames Valley, the 2nd recommendation was:

http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile_report.ht...
"8.3.2 An independent investigation is recommended to determine why there has been an increase in the number and severity of collisions and casualties following the deployment of mobile speed cameras and to establish whether there were more collisions when the mobile speed cameras were on site (a direct effect) or when the sites were unattended (an indirect effect). The author requested data on the number of collisions recorded by mobile speed camera operators but was advised by the partnership that such incidents were not logged. Further research could compare dates and times of collisions with dates and times of mobile speed camera operations. Also, Police collision investigation reports could be analysed to determine how the factors that contributed to collisions changed at these sites following the deployment of mobile speed cameras."

Without knowing if the increased accident rate was when the camera was present it cannot be determined if the presence of the camera was a factor.

Could it be changes to the road layout has increased the potential for accidents straightened a section and so increased the speed of traffic for example.

[oyster]

AH33 said:

You cant use logic with these people. They're worse than religious fanatics.

Logic works both ways.

It's not sound logic to carry out an above-limit overtake on a car cruising at 50mph in a 60mph limit when the road is anything other than empty, because there's a 99% chance that further traffic up ahead will mean you reach your destination 3 car lengths (or 1.5 seconds) ahead of the car you overtook.

Now you may say where's the fun in that? And I understand that point.
However now we're outside logic on a public highway.

[Corpulent Tosser]

I have just been reading the report and there are some interesting facts.

The accident rate was higher after placement of the cameras than it was before the selection process started, but during the selection process the accident rate was higher than either before the selection process started or after the placement of the cameras.

The mean before the selection started was one accident per site, but the sites selected all had four or more accidents during the selection process, that was part of the selection process.

After placement of the cameras the accident rate dropped to a little over the original mean, but far lower than during the selection process.

Which would indicate to me that the cameras have actually been successful in reducing the accident rate.

Figure 4.1 is where I take the above the information from.

If I am missing something from the report please feel free to correct me.

[Ken Figenus]

RobinOakapple said:

I'm guessing that's because those who take a different view on these matters have decided to let the 'scamera'-haters have this one to themselves. Bad manners to interrupt a circle-jerk

Whatever the facts its more about tribalism/entrenched positions...? I do often feel that (for both 'sides'). Still, facts are a better way forward

[RobinOakapple]

Ken Figenus said:

Still, facts are a better way forward

Most of what is heard as evidence in court cases is facts. If facts alone were enough, then judges and juries wouldn't be needed.