Friday 3rd August 2012
Cameras cut death in Scotland, continue in England
Latest figures show significant drop in road deaths in Scotland, while English councils remain keen on cameras despite funding cuts
Accidents, deaths and serious injuries on Scotland's roads have been slashed by two thirds since the introduction of speed cameras, according to the latest statistics.
In the three years to 2010, the number of fatalities on the roads in Scotland was 108, a fall of more than two thirds compared with the 337 people killed in the three years prior to the introduction of speed cameras. The study, undertaken by the Scottish Parliament, also reveals that injuries more than halved over the same periods, with 1,400 recorded injuries dropping to 684.
The number of tickets issued by the cameras has also dropped over the years. While 127,000 fixed penalty notices were issued from cameras in 2005-2006, while in 2010-11 the figure was 73,000
The general opinion in Scotland seems to support cameras, too, with 82 per cent of those taking part in the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2010-11 agreeing that people should see the use of safety cameras as a good thing.
Over on the south side of Hadrian's Wall, meanwhile, the RAC Foundation says that English councils are maintaining their commitment to speed cameras despite funding cuts.
Although Oxfordshire Avon & Somerset, Northamptonshire and Wiltshire & Swindon all switched of their cameras in 2010, there are still, according to the RAC Foundation's figures, 2,331 fixed speed camera sites, 3,026 fixed speed camera housings and 487 operational fixed cameras.
Don't think that because there are six times more housings than there are cameras you can avoid getting flashed, however: "Although there are many more housings than cameras, it seems that the cameras are regularly rotated between them ensuring there is some level of positive enforcement at most sites," says Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation. "It is also important to note that many police constabularies rely heavily on mobile cameras to catch law breakers and in many cases have now have an increased emphasis on this type of operation."
|
markeyturbo
Original Poster
52 posts
21 months
|
and im sure this has absolutely nothing to do with cars getting safer rather than the cameras themselves? 
|
|
|
f111lover
143 posts
63 months
|
Personally I think the drop is due to people slowing down due to the cost of fuel, rather than the camera effect.
|
|
|
oldcynic
1,546 posts
31 months
|
So which 3 year period are they using for comparison?
|
|
|
Alfanatic
6,038 posts
89 months
|
markeyturbo said: and im sure this has absolutely nothing to do with cars getting safer rather than the cameras themselves? Depends on which periods the two datasets represent. It doesn't say when the cameras were introduced in Scotland so it's hard to judge what safety developments have been made on cars in the interim. You could rule out passive safety equipment by counting the number of crashes rather than injuries, but that doesn't rule out improvements in active safety equipment. If the reduction in speeding tickets equates to a reduction in average speeds then there's also a correlation between this and the reduction in injuries, both numbers are moving in the same direction by at least half, and the additional reduction in injuries could be down to safer cars / environments. It would also be nice to see the figures isolated to the accident black spots covered by the cameras, as I'd expect to see even higher reductions then if the cameras are indeed such a significant influence. Whatever, it is an impressive drop that takes more than one bus crash or motorway pileup to explain away.
|
|
|
Max_Torque
4,906 posts
87 months
|
Excellent news! So lets extrapolate that data and immediately drop the speed limit to zero miles per hr. Surely, with that much evidence the Scotish parliment can not take any other path? Afterall, the statistics clearly demonstrate that cameras alone have "saved" many many lives.
Who's gonna join my "Think of the Children and GO ZERO" campaign???
;-)
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
PhantomPH
1,183 posts
95 months
|
So everything North of Hadrian's Wall is Scotland, is it? Well, since we're not Scotland and not England, I hereby claim this (the largest county on the Island) as my own land and under my rule.
Ladies and Gentleman, I hereby decree that all A roads North of Hadrian's Wall and South of the Scottish borded in the new state of PhantomVille, carry no speed restrictions.
|
|
|
hiccy
662 posts
82 months
|
oldcynic said: So which 3 year period are they using for comparison? The first camera I saw was in IIRC 1990 so I assume 1986 to 1989. ETA: Actually I think that's wrong, 1992 is probably more accurate so 89-91?
|
|
|
Alfanatic
6,038 posts
89 months
|
hiccy said: The first camera I saw was in IIRC 1990 so I assume 1986 to 1989. If that is the case I would want to see much more concrete evidence linking the reduction to cameras. An awful lot has changed since then.
|
|
|
blacksunmanta
6 posts
32 months
|
People will also tend to drive more thoughtfully, nothing to do with speed per say, but thinking about the way they a driving to optimize the journey. Resulting in people paying more attention.
Just a thought but more people doing less trips of a pointless nature would influence it as well. Statistics can be channeled to different uses dependent on what the people want to show.
|
|
|
hiccy
662 posts
82 months
|
Alfanatic said: hiccy said: The first camera I saw was in IIRC 1990 so I assume 1986 to 1989. If that is the case I would want to see much more concrete evidence linking the reduction to cameras. An awful lot has changed since then.  Yup agreed, even if my dates are out slightly. The changes to the roads, changes of traffic density and of vehicle construction have been immense, not forgetting changing driving tests, changing driving habits etc. Whilst I accept mobile phones weren't an issue back then, people were a lot more resistant to wearing seatbelts then too.
|
|
|
Andrew[MG]
2,430 posts
68 months
|
I hope their full report contains more information than this article. Playing with statistics to get their point across should just put more pressure on them to produce real answers.
|
|
|
FisiP1
1,148 posts
23 months
|
It is the safety of newer cars, nothing else. Total political BS.
|
|
|
School boy
907 posts
81 months
|
I think most of the people who answered the 'Scottish Crime and Justice Survey' drive 1.4 x reg astras at 50mph in the middle lane.
|
|
|
hiccy
662 posts
82 months
|
I have to say whilst we're on the topic (-ish), the very first camera I saw in Scotland was situated just before a crest on an urban dual carriageway on the other side of which was a primary school. Back in 1990 I had a very large scare on that road, coming over the crest at an indicated 50mph (in a Fiesta with a wildly over-reading speedo ) to be confronted with a lollypop lady and a road full of kids! Yes I was driving well within the observable distance, yes I stopped in plenty of time but yes I absolutely kacked it and did a full blown emergency stop! Thinking back now, if the road had been wet... I guess I wouldn't have been going so fast. I still think that camera is in a cracking place; shame it's in the minority. 
|
|
|
DaveH23
971 posts
40 months
|
markeyturbo said: and im sure this has absolutely nothing to do with cars getting safer rather than the cameras themselves? This. Far to many variables involved to say the cameras have worked.
|
|
|
RenesisEvo
1,882 posts
89 months
|
blacksunmanta said: Just a thought but more people doing less trips of a pointless nature would influence it as well. Statistics can be channeled to different uses dependent on what the people want to show. Indeed - the figures don't appear to account for whether more or less people are driving, and whether or not they drive more or less. E.g. what's better - three deaths from 100 people driving a total of 90,000miles, or four deaths from 150 people driving a total of 110,000miles?
|
|
|
Alfanatic
6,038 posts
89 months
|
FisiP1 said: It is the safety of newer cars, nothing else. Total political BS. I'd like to see more evidence to support this conclusion, or the article's. Either way would be fine.
|
|
|
Froomee
723 posts
39 months
|
The money it must cost to "generate" these "facts and figures" would surely be better spent on improving the roads themselves. How having a camera on a road that slows people down for all of about 50 metres saves lives i do not know 
|
|
|
Pistonwot
413 posts
29 months
|
What a load of old cobblers, why is PH regurgitating this s  te? Shame on you,,,
|
|
|
Prof Prolapse
7,551 posts
60 months
|
Epic science fail, a correlation does not equal causation.
|
|
