Speed Cameras - How do drivers respond.

[towman]

www.speedcheck.co.uk/SpeedCameras.pdf

A very intersesting paper, if a little hard going. Basic point seems to be that majority of drivers will only obey speed limits when near cameras (suprise suprise).

If you read nothing else, go to the last paragraph.

Steve

[leadfootlydon]

Good. One more person speaking some truth.

Surely the current revenue-focused policy must change someday?

[destroyer]

I have scanned the report and my conclusions (without prejudice to the author or the source from the web) are as follows:
1. I am aware that the slowing effect is about 50m around cameras, this is well known. Should these cameras be deplyed the effective distance can be extended throiugh the use of mobile units and the Police Traffic patrols either before or especially just after the camera.
2. The effect of time/distance cameras extend the speed control effectiveness of a camera system by setting up a zone of control between the cameras. This is extended further by deploying secondary (not-necessarily active) cameras.
3. Time/distance cameras wil be even more effective when clearly signed and more well known to all motorists.
4. Any form of speed enforcement device wil be more effective when deployed correctly and with the correct justification in a location that requires that treatment.
5. This is exactly the report I would carry around with me if I were selling time/distance camera systems.
6. The use of 3 poorly performing spot speed cameras to stack up against a well placed time/distance system hardly constitutes fantastic science.
7. I have deployed mobile systems with better results than the spot speed cameras in this report. It must have taken ages to find cameras with results as poor as the 3 in the report. In fact every mobile system I have deployed has better results than these cameras. Mobile systems, by the way, are expected to be less than half as effective as fixed spot cameras.

Just my initial thoughts you understand.

What was the intention of the person who posted this up, it would seem to be on Speedchecks website as a marketing tool.

[james_j]

That's not to say the cameras are in any way effective.

A much longer time period than most camera partnerships use is required for effectiveness to be judged.

See www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html

[destroyer]

james_j said:

That's not to say the cameras are in any way effective. A much longer time period than most camera partnerships use is required for effectiveness to be judged. See www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html

I think you will find that even this great work doesn't take this into account.

Look at the book again, it's a 3 year period before the camera is even reviewed. This should be the minimum time for effectiveness tests.

[tim.tonal]

destroyer said:

james_j said: That's not to say the cameras are in any way effective. A much longer time period than most camera partnerships use is required for effectiveness to be judged. See <a href="http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html">www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html</a> I think you will find that even this great work doesn't take this into account. Look at the book again, it's a 3 year period before the camera is even reviewed. This should be the minimum time for effectiveness tests.

... that gives at least 2 years after the accident rate statistics have regressed to the mean. Stats don't always do what you want them to

[telecat]

I've been looking at the stats posted on West Yorkshire Scameras site for Proposed Cameras. They are basically shooting themselves in the foot. With a FEW exceptions the figures show spikes in accidents which fall away in the years after. In the case of the Ilkley road probable cause is the works on the Sewage farm. Turning across traffic there was never a good idea. Also the Little Chef has closed so another right turn has gone.

[destroyer]

telecat said:

I've been looking at the stats posted on West Yorkshire Scameras site for Proposed Cameras. They are basically shooting themselves in the foot. With a FEW exceptions the figures show spikes in accidents which fall away in the years after. In the case of the Ilkley road probable cause is the works on the Sewage farm. Turning across traffic there was never a good idea. Also the Little Chef has closed so another right turn has gone.

Tell them.

[tim.tonal]

destroyer said:

telecat said: I've been looking at the stats posted on West Yorkshire Scameras site for Proposed Cameras. They are basically shooting themselves in the foot. With a FEW exceptions the figures show spikes in accidents which fall away in the years after. In the case of the Ilkley road probable cause is the works on the Sewage farm. Turning across traffic there was never a good idea. Also the Little Chef has closed so another right turn has gone. Tell them.

Don't ask too many questions, though - you won't get a decent answer . Based on previous experience of these outfits they'll get evasive, adopt a 'we know best' stance, but then fail to back this up with full meaningful evidence.

For instance full accident statistics that go back a few years before cameras were deployed and the actual causes of the accidents that are too-readily blamed on exceeding the posted limit over this time - especially the National Speed Limit on good dual carriageways and motorways. A view that contradicts that of every driver I know.

>> Edited by tim.tonal on Monday 2nd May 08:15

[destroyer]

tim.tonal said:

destroyer said: telecat said: I've been looking at the stats posted on West Yorkshire Scameras site for Proposed Cameras. They are basically shooting themselves in the foot. With a FEW exceptions the figures show spikes in accidents which fall away in the years after. In the case of the Ilkley road probable cause is the works on the Sewage farm. Turning across traffic there was never a good idea. Also the Little Chef has closed so another right turn has gone. Tell them. Don't ask too many questions, though - you won't get a decent answer . Based on previous experience of these outfits they'll get evasive, adopt a 'we know best' stance, but then fail to back this up with full meaningful evidence. For instance full accident statistics that go back a few years before cameras were deployed and the actual causes of the accidents that are too-readily blamed on exceeding the posted limit over this time - especially the National Speed Limit on good dual carriageways and motorways. A view that contradicts that of every driver I know. >> Edited by tim.tonal on Monday 2nd May 08:15

I don't understand why that would be. The accidents don't have to be specificaly caused by speed at all, see the DfT handbook on their website.
There has to be an accident cluster and a high incidence of speeding motorists in excess of the ACPO speed enforcement guidelines, an 85th %ile speed at or above the ACPO guideline in free flowing traffic and no suitable and imminent engineering solutions.

So why would any sort of problem occur wit hthe justification? After all they have to get every site past their steering group as well as the DfT board, so if they are not justified they get thrown out.

You have said that "Don't ask too many questions, though - you won't get a decent answer . Based on previous experience of these outfits they'll get evasive, adopt a 'we know best' stance, but then fail to back this up with full meaningful evidence. "
Give an example of when you have received such treatment.

The partnerships usually have access to several years worth of accident records, recorded quite accurately, so are much better than anecdotal information. In other words they usualy do know best. For example, in my area a pair of fixed cameras are planned for a specific location. The site is a scene of frequent overtaking related multiple fatalities. 7 people have died in 3 crashes in the last 2 years, 10 in the last 3 years. Now the anecdotal evidence stated "there are hardly any accidents in this area", " there hasn't been anyone killed for years here", "why are cameras being placed here when I can't remember when the last accident happened".
Now there were 6 people killed there in 2 accidents in 2004, perhaps they have been missed because they were listening to the Archers, tending their sheep or just out at work but the accidents, the location, the causes, the names of the dead and injured are all on a database I read on a daily basis.
What would you do when faced with the evidence and someone who just doesn't want a camera in their back yard? I know what I'm doing and they can use anecdotes all they like but when the records are viewed they just don't match up.
You have got my example, now lets see yours.

[david_s]

destroyer said:

There has to be an accident cluster and a high incidence of speeding motorists in excess of the ACPO speed enforcement guidelines, an 85th %ile speed at or above the ACPO guideline in free flowing traffic and no suitable and imminent engineering solutions.

If this is the case how do you justify the deployment of cameras on brand new roads such as the A130? Perhaps the road had accident black spots included in the design specification? Or maybe it was a nice empty, new, straight road on which people might just consider it safe to drive in excess of 70mph?

>> Edited by david_s on Monday 2nd May 14:29

[dieseldog]

destroyer said:

The partnerships usually have access to several years worth of accident records, recorded quite accurately............

So from your description it sounds like a nice clear straight single carriage way. The main cause of death appears to be drivers overtaking dangerously.

Now wouldn't a much easier solution to be to stop overtaking on that stretch with double lines?

Or maybe clearing road foliage trees etc to give drivers a better view?

Also your stats from what I can make out its
2004 6 deaths
2003 1 death
2002 3 deaths

Now what really caused those accidents was it dangerous overtaking by an inexperienced driver or a drunk driver or a stolen car or what if it was the last two then a camera will do nothing.

now why do parnterships only use 3 years its a very small number considering the number of years most roads have been around. Or is it because the stats wouldn't look as good if you used 10 years?

[kevinday]

destroyer said:

You have said that "Don't ask too many questions, though - you won't get a decent answer . Based on previous experience of these outfits they'll get evasive, adopt a 'we know best' stance, but then fail to back this up with full meaningful evidence. " Give an example of when you have received such treatment.

On the Cumbria SCP forum. Many questions went totally unanswered, or were given answers unrelated to the question. Time and time again information relating to control sites and specific sites were requested, it never came.

[deltafox]

destroyer said:

The accidents don't have to be specificaly caused by speed at all, see the DfT handbook on their website. There has to be an accident cluster and a high incidence of speeding motorists in excess of the ACPO speed enforcement guidelines, an 85th %ile speed at or above the ACPO guideline in free flowing traffic and no suitable and imminent engineering solutions.

Thanks for that admission.

So if the accidents arent specifically caused by speed, wtf will putting up a speed camera do about these "non speed related" crashes?

[Jewhoo]

deltafox said:

Thanks for that admission. So if the accidents arent specifically caused by speed, wtf will putting up a speed camera do about these "non speed related" crashes?

Cornered. Again.

[destroyer]

david_s said:

destroyer said: There has to be an accident cluster and a high incidence of speeding motorists in excess of the ACPO speed enforcement guidelines, an 85th %ile speed at or above the ACPO guideline in free flowing traffic and no suitable and imminent engineering solutions. If this is the case how do you justify the deployment of cameras on brand new roads such as the A130? Perhaps the road had accident black spots included in the design specification? Or maybe it was a nice empty, new, straight road on which people might just consider it safe to drive in excess of 70mph? >> Edited by david_s on Monday 2nd May 14:29

I don't justify it on a new road and never will.
As I am not responsible for either the A130 and any camera on a new road you would need to ask those who have done so.

[destroyer]

dieseldog said:

destroyer said: The partnerships usually have access to several years worth of accident records, recorded quite accurately............ So from your description it sounds like a nice clear straight single carriage way. The main cause of death appears to be drivers overtaking dangerously. Now wouldn't a much easier solution to be to stop overtaking on that stretch with double lines? Or maybe clearing road foliage trees etc to give drivers a better view? Also your stats from what I can make out its 2004 6 deaths 2003 1 death 2002 3 deaths Now what really caused those accidents was it dangerous overtaking by an inexperienced driver or a drunk driver or a stolen car or what if it was the last two then a camera will do nothing. now why do parnterships only use 3 years its a very small number considering the number of years most roads have been around. Or is it because the stats wouldn't look as good if you used 10 years?

Nice idea about the double-whites oh canine one. They are already there.
It's a barrier on a single carriageway or cameras I'm afraid.
What you have to remember, if I come along witha camera then all of these smart ideas have been tried.

[destroyer]

kevinday said:

destroyer said: You have said that "Don't ask too many questions, though - you won't get a decent answer . Based on previous experience of these outfits they'll get evasive, adopt a 'we know best' stance, but then fail to back this up with full meaningful evidence. " Give an example of when you have received such treatment. On the Cumbria SCP forum. Many questions went totally unanswered, or were given answers unrelated to the question. Time and time again information relating to control sites and specific sites were requested, it never came.

You are quite mistaken and innacurate. Control site data was published before it shut. The main reason it did shut is that answers were given time and again and were ignored because they were regarded as not being the answers that were wanted, not because they wern't given.

[destroyer]

deltafox said:

destroyer said: The accidents don't have to be specificaly caused by speed at all, see the DfT handbook on their website. There has to be an accident cluster and a high incidence of speeding motorists in excess of the ACPO speed enforcement guidelines, an 85th %ile speed at or above the ACPO guideline in free flowing traffic and no suitable and imminent engineering solutions. Thanks for that admission. So if the accidents arent specifically caused by speed, wtf will putting up a speed camera do about these "non speed related" crashes?

I said this about 2 years ago for the first time.
The answer to your question has also been given many time, because it slows down teh average speed of traffic, this is proportional to the incidence of accidents. It is related by a square law to slight accidents, by a cubed law to serious accidents and by a 4th power law to fatal accidents.
That's why.

[destroyer]

Jewhoo said:

deltafox said: Thanks for that admission. So if the accidents arent specifically caused by speed, wtf will putting up a speed camera do about these "non speed related" crashes? Cornered. Again.

See above. Why do we bother with these answers, I must have posted this about 20 times in the past week on as many fora.

If you don't agree with the theory, ask a scientist responsible for it.

>> Edited by destroyer on Monday 2nd May 19:16