SPEED CAMS: THE PICTURE IS UNCLEAR (Bristol Evening Post)
Discussion
It mentions Paul Smith but not his web site:-
Visit: <a href="www.safespeed.org.uk/">www.safespeed.org.uk/</a>
It says 60% admit to speeding - the rest are liars or don't drive a car (or bike).
Speeding means "exceeding the statutory speed limit". It implies nothing else, although the whole tenat of the scampaign is to associate the term with inherent danger.
>> Edited by thirsty33 on Wednesday 7th September 22:44
>> Edited by thirsty33 on Thursday 8th September 07:28
Visit: <a href="www.safespeed.org.uk/">www.safespeed.org.uk/</a>
It says 60% admit to speeding - the rest are liars or don't drive a car (or bike).
Speeding means "exceeding the statutory speed limit". It implies nothing else, although the whole tenat of the scampaign is to associate the term with inherent danger.
>> Edited by thirsty33 on Wednesday 7th September 22:44
>> Edited by thirsty33 on Thursday 8th September 07:28
"There are also a number of fixed camera sites which are regularly vandalised and those two things will lead to a distorted picture. There is also fluctuation in the data, which is why it has to be looked at over a long period if you want to see any patterns.
"Accident rates in Bristol generally have gone up, so, if they are falling at cameras sites or remaining the same, then that has to be a good thing."
Oh please, I know projects like this usally take a while to reap real rewards, there is no quick fix, but the speed camera boom has been growing almost exponentially for the past 5 years at least.
When, after all those millions of £££ spent and time invested the best they can come up with is "Speed Cameras: Hey at least your not MORE likely to die this year..." it really is time to throw in the towel and start figuring out a) why deaths are rising, b) why speed cameras are barely if at all helping and c) what is a better way of solving the problem.
"Accident rates in Bristol generally have gone up, so, if they are falling at cameras sites or remaining the same, then that has to be a good thing."
Oh please, I know projects like this usally take a while to reap real rewards, there is no quick fix, but the speed camera boom has been growing almost exponentially for the past 5 years at least.
When, after all those millions of £££ spent and time invested the best they can come up with is "Speed Cameras: Hey at least your not MORE likely to die this year..." it really is time to throw in the towel and start figuring out a) why deaths are rising, b) why speed cameras are barely if at all helping and c) what is a better way of solving the problem.
"I am not a speeder and I was not driving unsafely at the time, but I was penalised for it".
I guess that sums it up for me. They punish safe driving with the offence of 'excess speed' and that equates to enforcing a law for the laws sake.
What is to be gained from punishing safe drivers slightly over the number on the tin plate?
Safer roads? I make myself laugh!
The gain = BIG BUCKS and JOB PRESERVATION and NOTHING ELSE.
I guess that sums it up for me. They punish safe driving with the offence of 'excess speed' and that equates to enforcing a law for the laws sake.
What is to be gained from punishing safe drivers slightly over the number on the tin plate?
Safer roads? I make myself laugh!
The gain = BIG BUCKS and JOB PRESERVATION and NOTHING ELSE.
Dave Gollicker, from the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, said :
"Accident rates in Bristol generally have gone up, so, if they are falling at cameras sites or remaining the same, then that has to be a good thing".
OMG, what is he on!! Unbelievable!!
I could pick many roads where an accident has occured but there wasn't an accident the year before. Funny that - not! Just stick a camera there and claim success when there isn't an accident there the year after either. RttM.
I certainly wouldn't call it a "good thing" when the accident rates at SAFETY GATSO sites are remaining the bloody same!! Those gatso's rake in ££££££'s.
Get a real job Mr Gollicker.
"Accident rates in Bristol generally have gone up, so, if they are falling at cameras sites or remaining the same, then that has to be a good thing".
OMG, what is he on!! Unbelievable!!
I could pick many roads where an accident has occured but there wasn't an accident the year before. Funny that - not! Just stick a camera there and claim success when there isn't an accident there the year after either. RttM.
I certainly wouldn't call it a "good thing" when the accident rates at SAFETY GATSO sites are remaining the bloody same!! Those gatso's rake in ££££££'s.
Get a real job Mr Gollicker.
deeps said:
Dave Gollicker, from the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, said :
"Accident rates in Bristol generally have gone up, so, if they are falling at cameras sites or remaining the same, then that has to be a good thing".
OMG, what is he on!! Unbelievable!!
I could pick many roads where an accident has occured but there wasn't an accident the year before. Funny that - not! Just stick a camera there and claim success when there isn't an accident there the year after either. RttM.
I certainly wouldn't call it a "good thing" when the accident rates at SAFETY GATSO sites are remaining the bloody same!! Those gatso's rake in ££££££'s.
Get a real job Mr Gollicker.
Typical pratnership twaddle.
Per programme. They must have to learn this by heart. Wonder if they get fined if they miss a word out 
Dave G said:
It is for us to decide whether a safety camera is not working to stop accidents.
Somehow that doesn't seem right. Surely there should be an independent body that reviews all camera usage to determine whether each location remains suitable? The Scumera partnerships should then be responsible for operations. This whole partnership stuff is far too incestuous and wouldn't be permitted in other areas of public life.
The article said:
"There is an alternative: the driver-activated signs which light up with the speed limit when you approach if you are going too fast.
"These have proven to be three times more effective at cutting accidents than speed cameras."
Dave Gollicker, from the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, said drivers should not need an extra sign to tell them what the speed limit is.
Well done Dave. Missed the point entirely, didn't you?
(a) Driver-activated signs have been shown to be more effective than cameras (at reducing traffic speed, not raising revenue, but that's another issue!), so why knock them?
(b) Although some signs do indicate that you're exceeding the limit by displaying the posted limit, that's not the point, is it? The point is that the sign indicates you are exceeding the limit, which leads to:
(c) The reason driver-activated signs work so well is that they "shame" drivers into altering their behaviour rather than simply penalising them after the event.
Penalising after the event is, for me, the real bugbear with automated prosecution. If it truly is dangerous to be driving at a few mph over the posted limit, then surely it needs to be stopped there and then before an incident occurs? What's the point in telling you about it 14 days later and letting you carry on driving "dangerously" in the meantime?
Hmmm. Perhaps its because we all know that driving at a speed in excess of an arbitary numerical limit is not inherently dangerous, and the system we have in place actually supports that notion implicitly.
Feckwits.
mechsympathy said:
Unfortunately, the editorial slant here is a lot less sensible than that article
the editorial said:
So the figures are inconclusive. There is no firm evidence to show that speed cameras cut the number of deaths on our roads. But equally there is no evidence to prove that they are ineffective.
What a tw@. If scameras aren't reducing deaths on the road, then they're ineffective as a safety measure by definition. Jeez.
ECHR has walked all over this government in the past (well, the government rolled over meekly and invited the ECHR laws in) and will do so again.
I have faith that something I hate and loathe with all my energy will defeat something I hate and loathe with what I have left...
Oh god - don't tell me I'll be hit by a double whammy?
I have faith that something I hate and loathe with all my energy will defeat something I hate and loathe with what I have left...
Oh god - don't tell me I'll be hit by a double whammy?
How anyone can still support cameras is beyond belief, unless your interest in them is financial.
How much more evidence is needed?
A few months ago, it was shown that the vast majority of people being caught by the cameras were accident-free and in all respects good citizens. If people were being fined for just being near a house which was burgled, there would be an uproar and the law would be changed overnight.
Given the government-led obsession with "doing something", it could be suggested that it's time to ban this idiotic obsession with speed control and employ sensible objectives like improving driving skills.
If the government were to introduce anything else that so clearly didn't work and if fact led to an increase in deaths, there would at the very least be questions asked in The House. Why this issue hasn't been raised at the top level I just can't imagine.
How much more evidence is needed?
A few months ago, it was shown that the vast majority of people being caught by the cameras were accident-free and in all respects good citizens. If people were being fined for just being near a house which was burgled, there would be an uproar and the law would be changed overnight.
Given the government-led obsession with "doing something", it could be suggested that it's time to ban this idiotic obsession with speed control and employ sensible objectives like improving driving skills.
If the government were to introduce anything else that so clearly didn't work and if fact led to an increase in deaths, there would at the very least be questions asked in The House. Why this issue hasn't been raised at the top level I just can't imagine.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff