Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?

[Devil2575]

Digby said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Mobile site popping up around a bend to do streams of commuters at 36mph on a road that was 40mph before and had no bad history associated with speed - revenue and jobs.

Yet, despite how obvious these situations became and despite some of those of great importance in camera & police circles suggesting this to be the case, there are those here who absolutely refuse to accept it.If you try to convince them in any way, you are likely to be branded a conspiracy theorist.

I would be embarrassed to display such an incredible lack of objectivity, but that does seem to be a trend on here.

As opposed to the amazing objectivity displayed by the other side?

Where is this example located? Did the road really have no problems before?

Even if the situation is exactly as described does a single example really represent the situation as a whole.

[Phatboy317]

Devil2575 said:

Which paper are we discussing then? Please post a link to it so I can comment.

I don't think we're discussing any specific paper here, but rather discussing stuff generally.

However, if you want to discuss a specific paper then I refer you back to my previous post:

Phatboy317 said:

Devil2575 said:

I actually posted a link to an RAC report a few pages back.

It's not conclusive but it does offer some evidence of an overall reduction in KSIs at camera sites, even once you take regression to the mean into account.

As for clear evidence, there's clear evidence about lots of things and it doesn't stop those who don't want to believe.

http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/330/7487/331.full.p...

http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Evidence/Deta...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC196329...

There's plenty of stuff out there if you look.

Having had a quick look at those, (btw the first two links refer to the same thing) I'm not convinced that their conclusions are particularly solid, however I have to reserve judgement until I've had the opportunity to do a detailed study of those papers and relevant data - which probably isn't going to happen any time soon.

However I have previously looked in depth at a paper you linked to in your previous post:
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/pub...

I'm quite willing to discuss this one, although I don't think this thread is the right place.

[woof]

I've been driving for nearly 30 years now. I also race at a good club level so that combined experience and skill should make me decent driver.

In those 30 years I've never had a major accident ( a couple of silly bumps) and I've only had 1 speeding ticket. That's not because I drive slowly or stick to the speed limits (I remember not that long ago that you could happily drive at 100+ on the motorways without fear of a public flogging). It's because I'm a good aware driver. Speeding doesn't create accidents. Poor driving, bad decisions and bad luck create accidents.

But back to my 30 years with just 1 speeding ticket.

That's actually not true anymore. In the last 2 months I had 1 speed awareness course (brand new digital camera on a traffic light junction which is actually a speed camera) and had through another speeding ticket (scamera van - 85 on a motorway!) that happened just before the course (not that it would make the slightest difference).

My driving hasn't changed but it's obvious that the authorities have decided to target the motorist at a new level.

On a regular journey I make of 20 miles - I'll encounter 12 cameras. In one 4 mile stretch of the A41 from Brent Cross to the A1 roundabout there 4 speed cameras (those cameras on the traffic lights are speed cameras).

I've noticed virtually all the standard gatsos in my area have been replaced by the digital connected type and the M25 has the new DECs systems. It's all out war on the motorist but all I see is that the standard of driving is getting worse and worse. It's not making our roads safer - it's generating revenue and lots of it. When Gatso first came to the UK and did the sales pitch - it's pitch was revenue generation. Not saving lives. And it's still the case today.

Isn't a little odd that you see very few red light cameras. Jumping a red light will probably result in an accident. So wouldn't it make more sense "for safety" to make sure all the main traffic junctions had cameras? Of course not. Because most people don't jump red lights. We know it's bloody dangerous and there's no revenue for the authorities. Where as if we speed there's virtually no increased danger or likelihood of an accident but lots of people safely do it - so that's what they target and where are the putting them ?

They all seem to be in 40 upwards dual carriageways and motorways. These are the safest roads to drive on ?
Excessive speed in a built up area is dangerous but I'm not seeing speed cameras in 30mph zones again probably because most people stick to the limits are can't go any faster because of the traffic !

It's just about revenue.
Rant over - hope some agree !

[Jon1967x]

woof said:

I've been driving for nearly 30 years now. I also race at a good club level so that combined experience and skill should make me decent driver.

In those 30 years I've never had a major accident ( a couple of silly bumps) and I've only had 1 speeding ticket. That's not because I drive slowly or stick to the speed limits (I remember not that long ago that you could happily drive at 100+ on the motorways without fear of a public flogging). It's because I'm a good aware driver. Speeding doesn't create accidents. Poor driving, bad decisions and bad luck create accidents.

But back to my 30 years with just 1 speeding ticket.

That's actually not true anymore. In the last 2 months I had 1 speed awareness course (brand new digital camera on a traffic light junction which is actually a speed camera) and had through another speeding ticket (scamera van - 85 on a motorway!) that happened just before the course (not that it would make the slightest difference).

My driving hasn't changed but it's obvious that the authorities have decided to target the motorist at a new level.

On a regular journey I make of 20 miles - I'll encounter 12 cameras. In one 4 mile stretch of the A41 from Brent Cross to the A1 roundabout there 4 speed cameras (those cameras on the traffic lights are speed cameras).

I've noticed virtually all the standard gatsos in my area have been replaced by the digital connected type and the M25 has the new DECs systems. It's all out war on the motorist but all I see is that the standard of driving is getting worse and worse. It's not making our roads safer - it's generating revenue and lots of it. When Gatso first came to the UK and did the sales pitch - it's pitch was revenue generation. Not saving lives. And it's still the case today.

Isn't a little odd that you see very few red light cameras. Jumping a red light will probably result in an accident. So wouldn't it make more sense "for safety" to make sure all the main traffic junctions had cameras? Of course not. Because most people don't jump red lights. We know it's bloody dangerous and there's no revenue for the authorities. Where as if we speed there's virtually no increased danger or likelihood of an accident but lots of people safely do it - so that's what they target and where are the putting them ?

They all seem to be in 40 upwards dual carriageways and motorways. These are the safest roads to drive on ?
Excessive speed in a built up area is dangerous but I'm not seeing speed cameras in 30mph zones again probably because most people stick to the limits are can't go any faster because of the traffic !

It's just about revenue.
Rant over - hope some agree !

And what do you want them to do with all the rubbish drivers out there? Unfortunately you have been caught by the system which is design to slow down the less able, less spatially aware, less competent drivers.

My driving record is not dissimilar to yours and by the sounds of it better as I've not had the silly bumps, and I've been done in the last 2 years. Its the price you pay.

And I'm not sure a good club racer necessarily makes you any better on the public road (doesn't mean your worse either). Feel free to have that debate on advanced driving section.

[woof]

Valid point. But what are they doing about education or trying to make the not so good drivers better ?
The speed awareness course does nothing to make a bad driver better. And does speeding even mean you're a bad driver.

One thing we do agree on is that there is a need to improve driving standards.

Jon1967x said:

woof said:

I've been driving for nearly 30 years now. I also race at a good club level so that combined experience and skill should make me decent driver.

In those 30 years I've never had a major accident ( a couple of silly bumps) and I've only had 1 speeding ticket. That's not because I drive slowly or stick to the speed limits (I remember not that long ago that you could happily drive at 100+ on the motorways without fear of a public flogging). It's because I'm a good aware driver. Speeding doesn't create accidents. Poor driving, bad decisions and bad luck create accidents.

But back to my 30 years with just 1 speeding ticket.

That's actually not true anymore. In the last 2 months I had 1 speed awareness course (brand new digital camera on a traffic light junction which is actually a speed camera) and had through another speeding ticket (scamera van - 85 on a motorway!) that happened just before the course (not that it would make the slightest difference).

My driving hasn't changed but it's obvious that the authorities have decided to target the motorist at a new level.

On a regular journey I make of 20 miles - I'll encounter 12 cameras. In one 4 mile stretch of the A41 from Brent Cross to the A1 roundabout there 4 speed cameras (those cameras on the traffic lights are speed cameras).

I've noticed virtually all the standard gatsos in my area have been replaced by the digital connected type and the M25 has the new DECs systems. It's all out war on the motorist but all I see is that the standard of driving is getting worse and worse. It's not making our roads safer - it's generating revenue and lots of it. When Gatso first came to the UK and did the sales pitch - it's pitch was revenue generation. Not saving lives. And it's still the case today.

Isn't a little odd that you see very few red light cameras. Jumping a red light will probably result in an accident. So wouldn't it make more sense "for safety" to make sure all the main traffic junctions had cameras? Of course not. Because most people don't jump red lights. We know it's bloody dangerous and there's no revenue for the authorities. Where as if we speed there's virtually no increased danger or likelihood of an accident but lots of people safely do it - so that's what they target and where are the putting them ?

They all seem to be in 40 upwards dual carriageways and motorways. These are the safest roads to drive on ?
Excessive speed in a built up area is dangerous but I'm not seeing speed cameras in 30mph zones again probably because most people stick to the limits are can't go any faster because of the traffic !

It's just about revenue.
Rant over - hope some agree !

And what do you want them to do with all the rubbish drivers out there? Unfortunately you have been caught by the system which is design to slow down the less able, less spatially aware, less competent drivers.

My driving record is not dissimilar to yours and by the sounds of it better as I've not had the silly bumps, and I've been done in the last 2 years. Its the price you pay.

And I'm not sure a good club racer necessarily makes you any better on the public road (doesn't mean your worse either). Feel free to have that debate on advanced driving section.

[singlecoil]

woof said:

Valid point. But what are they doing about education or trying to make the not so good drivers better ?
The speed awareness course does nothing to make a bad driver better. And does speeding even mean you're a bad driver.

One thing we do agree on is that there is a need to improve driving standards.

What do you suggest they do about driving standards?

Whatever it is it won't work because a) there are far too many drivers already holding driving licences and driving badly for there to be any practical and cost effective remedy, and b) even if you teach them to drive properly, there's no guarantee that they are actually going to do that, especially if it doesn't suit them for one reason or another.

Look at the number of smokers, they all know they are not supposed to be doing it, but they are still doing it, what did education do for them?

The whole point of speed limits is not that people going slower than them will be safe, and those going faster won't be, it's to limit the damage that occurs when accidents happen.

[Jon1967x]

singlecoil said:

What do you suggest they do about driving standards?

Whatever it is it won't work because a) there are far too many drivers already holding driving licences and driving badly for there to be any practical and cost effective remedy, and b) even if you teach them to drive properly, there's no guarantee that they are actually going to do that, especially if it doesn't suit them for one reason or another.

Look at the number of smokers, they all know they are not supposed to be doing it, but they are still doing it, what did education do for them?

The whole point of speed limits is not that people going slower than them will be safe, and those going faster won't be, it's to limit the damage that occurs when accidents happen.

I tell you how I'd start.

Anybody with who wants insurance to drive other people around for money (e.g. taxi drivers) that don't already do it, have to take regular tests and are expected to drive at a higher standard than others. The number of bad taxi drivers I see is incredible.

Secondly, the police should have increased powers to send people on a driver awareness course (not speed awareness) ie its offered following accidents or other incidents where a due care and attention could be considered. Marginally speed - you can do a speed awareness, marginally drive with out due care and attention, you do a different course. If safety is a real concern why isn't more appropriate than a speed awareness course? Should include a practical assessment.

Thirdly, everybody at 70 is made to take a medical and a kind of retest if they want to keep their licence. I'd then look at a transition where eventually every 20 years everybody is expected to take a retest. There are far too many drivers who drive like they were taught, not all of which is still relevant or appropriate. Weed out the unsafe through age or ignorant due to time (there are other classes of bad driver)

Fourth, insurance companies give a discount to drivers who have taken an advanced test/retest within the last 5 years. Give incentives to those that want to drive with a high standard

The combination of these would be a pretty good start

[vonhosen]

Jon1967x said:

singlecoil said:

What do you suggest they do about driving standards?

Whatever it is it won't work because a) there are far too many drivers already holding driving licences and driving badly for there to be any practical and cost effective remedy, and b) even if you teach them to drive properly, there's no guarantee that they are actually going to do that, especially if it doesn't suit them for one reason or another.


Look at the number of smokers, they all know they are not supposed to be doing it, but they are still doing it, what did education do for them?

The whole point of speed limits is not that people going slower than them will be safe, and those going faster won't be, it's to limit the damage that occurs when accidents happen.

I tell you how I'd start.

Anybody with who wants insurance to drive other people around for money (e.g. taxi drivers) that don't already do it, have to take regular tests and are expected to drive at a higher standard than others. The number of bad taxi drivers I see is incredible.

You do realise there is a taxi test don't you & there is CPC for PCV/LGV drivers?

Jon1967x said:

Secondly, the police should have increased powers to send people on a driver awareness course (not speed awareness) ie its offered following accidents or other incidents where a due care and attention could be considered. Marginally speed - you can do a speed awareness, marginally drive with out due care and attention, you do a different course. If safety is a real concern why isn't more appropriate than a speed awareness course? Should include a practical assessment.

They already exist & happen.

Jon1967x said:

Thirdly, everybody at 70 is made to take a medical and a kind of retest if they want to keep their licence. I'd then look at a transition where eventually every 20 years everybody is expected to take a retest. There are far too many drivers who drive like they were taught, not all of which is still relevant or appropriate. Weed out the unsafe through age or ignorant due to time (there are other classes of bad driver)

It's an ageing population & I think your proposals are likely to be less popular than enforcement of current road traffic laws.
Most of the population would rather take their chances with enforcement than enforced retests for licences. A real vote losers for politicians no doubt.

Jon1967x said:

Fourth, insurance companies give a discount to drivers who have taken an advanced test/retest within the last 5 years. Give incentives to those that want to drive with a high standard

They'll argue that those who are statistically less likely to crash already receive discounts.
That's what matters, are you less likely to crash year on year not that you managed to drive how an examiner wanted you to for less than an hour in the last 5 years.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 24th January 15:44

[Jon1967x]

vonhosen said:

Jon1967x said:

singlecoil said:

What do you suggest they do about driving standards?

Whatever it is it won't work because a) there are far too many drivers already holding driving licences and driving badly for there to be any practical and cost effective remedy, and b) even if you teach them to drive properly, there's no guarantee that they are actually going to do that, especially if it doesn't suit them for one reason or another.


Look at the number of smokers, they all know they are not supposed to be doing it, but they are still doing it, what did education do for them?

The whole point of speed limits is not that people going slower than them will be safe, and those going faster won't be, it's to limit the damage that occurs when accidents happen.

I tell you how I'd start.

Anybody with who wants insurance to drive other people around for money (e.g. taxi drivers) that don't already do it, have to take regular tests and are expected to drive at a higher standard than others. The number of bad taxi drivers I see is incredible.

You do realise there is a taxi test don't you & there is CPC for PCV/LGV drivers?

Jon1967x said:

Secondly, the police should have increased powers to send people on a driver awareness course (not speed awareness) ie its offered following accidents or other incidents where a due care and attention could be considered. Marginally speed - you can do a speed awareness, marginally drive with out due care and attention, you do a different course. If safety is a real concern why isn't more appropriate than a speed awareness course? Should include a practical assessment.

They already exist & happen.

Jon1967x said:

Thirdly, everybody at 70 is made to take a medical and a kind of retest if they want to keep their licence. I'd then look at a transition where eventually every 20 years everybody is expected to take a retest. There are far too many drivers who drive like they were taught, not all of which is still relevant or appropriate. Weed out the unsafe through age or ignorant due to time (there are other classes of bad driver)

It's an ageing population & I think your proposals are likely to be less popular than enforcement of current road traffic laws.
Most of the population would rather take their chances with enforcement than enforced retests for licences. A real vote losers for politicians no doubt.

Jon1967x said:

Fourth, insurance companies give a discount to drivers who have taken an advanced test/retest within the last 5 years. Give incentives to those that want to drive with a high standard

They'll argue that those who are statistically less likely to crash already receive discounts.
That's what matters, are you less likely to crash year on year not that you managed to drive how an examiner wanted you to for less than an hour in the last 5 years.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 24th January 15:44

My wife has to be accredited to drive a school minibus - its a joke. If taxi drivers had to do similar, that would be a joke too. Somebody needs to grow balls.

If there is an option to send people on a course why do so few people every talk about it? It probably does, but few are made to go on it. I imagine its a court order to do it as part of sentencing, I'm talking about people being given a notice of intended prosecution with an option to do a robust training course.

Start with the over 70's, not sure you'd lose that many votes and many people would support the idea.

The final one was a reflection of how recent they did the advanced test. My dad passed his IAM test 35 years ago. Hardly current and hardly a reflection on his current driving.

[singlecoil]

Jon1967x said:

My wife has to be accredited to drive a school minibus - its a joke. If taxi drivers had to do similar, that would be a joke too. Somebody needs to grow balls.

If there is an option to send people on a course why do so few people every talk about it? It probably does, but few are made to go on it. I imagine its a court order to do it as part of sentencing, I'm talking about people being given a notice of intended prosecution with an option to do a robust training course.

Start with the over 70's, not sure you'd lose that many votes and many people would support the idea.

The final one was a reflection of how recent they did the advanced test. My dad passed his IAM test 35 years ago. Hardly current and hardly a reflection on his current driving.

Still doesn't address the point someone made earlier about people knowing what they should do (drive properly, pay attention etc) and still not doing it, because it doesn't suit them, or they can't be bothered, or because they need to phone somebody, send them a text, think about some tricky problem they've got or because they are running late.

[Jon1967x]

singlecoil said:

Still doesn't address the point someone made earlier about people knowing what they should do (drive properly, pay attention etc) and still not doing it, because it doesn't suit them, or they can't be bothered, or because they need to phone somebody, send them a text, think about some tricky problem they've got or because they are running late.

Oh I agree, but it would be a good start if people knew what speed limits were, knew what signs meant, had a modicome of hazard perception, faced up to their eye sight getting worse with age and run the risk of having the licence taken away if when they're trying to driver properly, still can't. But put that way, it wouldn't be a vote winner.

[Hungrymc]

singlecoil said:

Still doesn't address the point someone made earlier about people knowing what they should do (drive properly, pay attention etc) and still not doing it, because it doesn't suit them, or they can't be bothered, or because they need to phone somebody, send them a text, think about some tricky problem they've got or because they are running late.

I haven't read all 47 pages but this is such an important point. The only issue I have with speed cameras is that they have brought such focus upon speed that a great deal of drivers really associate driving slowly with driving safely. They may be on the phone, unable to see, have little or no hazard preception.... To the majority, these things are minor offences compared to 80 on the motorway because of the amount of rhetoric about it.

They're an instrumental factor in declining driving standards.

[woof]

Hungrymc said:

singlecoil said:

Still doesn't address the point someone made earlier about people knowing what they should do (drive properly, pay attention etc) and still not doing it, because it doesn't suit them, or they can't be bothered, or because they need to phone somebody, send them a text, think about some tricky problem they've got or because they are running late.

I haven't read all 47 pages but this is such an important point. The only issue I have with speed cameras is that they have brought such focus upon speed that a great deal of drivers really associate driving slowly with driving safely. They may be on the phone, unable to see, have little or no hazard preception.... To the majority, these things are minor offences compared to 80 on the motorway because of the amount of rhetoric about it.

They're an instrumental factor in declining driving standards.

Totally agree with this.

[Jasandjules]

Hungrymc said:

I haven't read all 47 pages but this is such an important point. The only issue I have with speed cameras is that they have brought such focus upon speed that a great deal of drivers really associate driving slowly with driving safely. They may be on the phone, unable to see, have little or no hazard preception.... To the majority, these things are minor offences compared to 80 on the motorway because of the amount of rhetoric about it.

They're an instrumental factor in declining driving standards.

Absolutely.

I've known people who have crashed to say "I don't know how I crashed, I wasn't doing more than 30mph" in the 30 and so on.

I've also never seen a speed camera in a place which I believe would be for safety. And I've seen them outside of schools many times....

[singlecoil]

Hungrymc said:

singlecoil said:

Still doesn't address the point someone made earlier about people knowing what they should do (drive properly, pay attention etc) and still not doing it, because it doesn't suit them, or they can't be bothered, or because they need to phone somebody, send them a text, think about some tricky problem they've got or because they are running late.

I haven't read all 47 pages but this is such an important point. The only issue I have with speed cameras is that they have brought such focus upon speed that a great deal of drivers really associate driving slowly with driving safely. They may be on the phone, unable to see, have little or no hazard preception.... To the majority, these things are minor offences compared to 80 on the motorway because of the amount of rhetoric about it.

They're an instrumental factor in declining driving standards.

Recycled straw man argument. Just a bunch of unproven suppositions.

[Jasandjules]

singlecoil said:

Recycled straw man argument. Just a bunch of unproven suppositions.

More likely to be observations made during driving on the UK roads.

[vonhosen]

Jon1967x said:

My wife has to be accredited to drive a school minibus - its a joke. If taxi drivers had to do similar, that would be a joke too. Somebody needs to grow balls.

The advanced test is a joke isn't it, but you want that to be used.

Jon1967x said:

If there is an option to send people on a course why do so few people every talk about it? It probably does, but few are made to go on it. I imagine its a court order to do it as part of sentencing, I'm talking about people being given a notice of intended prosecution with an option to do a robust training course.

It's offered in the same way a speed awareness course is. Evidence of offence leading to offer of a course in lieu of a prosecution.

Jon1967x said:

Start with the over 70's, not sure you'd lose that many votes and many people would support the idea.

Because they'll see the threat to their licence greater than which exists at the moment through prosecutions.
Why pick the over 70's?
Is there evidence that the over 70's are a greater risk than say the under 25's?

Jon1967x said:

The final one was a reflection of how recent they did the advanced test. My dad passed his IAM test 35 years ago. Hardly current and hardly a reflection on his current driving.

As I said, claims history & other factors are a better indicator of risk than a one hour driving test & they don't cost.
People don't behave as usual on test.

[singlecoil]

Jasandjules said:

singlecoil said:

Recycled straw man argument. Just a bunch of unproven suppositions.

More likely to be observations made during driving on the UK roads.

Assumptions, not observations. You can observe a person's driving, but you can't observe his thoughts, which is what was claimed in the post I was replying to.

[Devil2575]

Jasandjules said:

Hungrymc said:

I haven't read all 47 pages but this is such an important point. The only issue I have with speed cameras is that they have brought such focus upon speed that a great deal of drivers really associate driving slowly with driving safely. They may be on the phone, unable to see, have little or no hazard preception.... To the majority, these things are minor offences compared to 80 on the motorway because of the amount of rhetoric about it.

They're an instrumental factor in declining driving standards.

Absolutely.

I've known people who have crashed to say "I don't know how I crashed, I wasn't doing more than 30mph" in the 30 and so on.

I've also never seen a speed camera in a place which I believe would be for safety. And I've seen them outside of schools many times....

bks bks bks.

Instrumental in declining standards my arse. Aside from the usual anecdotes there is mo evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that standards are declining.

I'm tired of explaining to people on PH why personal experiences are not good evidence so I'm not going to bother again.

[Jasandjules]

Devil2575 said:

Aside from the usual anecdotes there is mo evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that standards are declining.

I'm tired of explaining to people on PH why personal experiences are not good evidence so I'm not going to bother again.

No need to bother indeed.

I trust you don't drive either.